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

from the bad-precedent dept

Mon, Aug 22nd 2016 8:35am — Karl Bode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 Comments

Building Large-Scale Mesh Networks Using Ubiquitous Software-Defined Radios

Wireless

from the distributed,-ad-hoc,-federated,-and-self-organizing dept

Tue, Aug 9th 2016 11:06pm — Glyn Moody

A couple of years ago, we noted that one lesson from Snowden's leaks was that the NSA and GCHQ were listening in to all the major pipes and nodes that go to make up the Internet. Mesh networks seemed one way to make things harder for the snoopers, but they have been slow to develop on a scale large enough to make a difference. A fascinating article on the Wireless Week site offers tantalizing glimpses of a new generation of wireless technologies that could make meshes easy to set up and hard to monitor. The basic technology is software-defined radio (SDR):

Thanks to inexpensive open source software-defined radios (SDRs), innovators will now be able to design their own wireless protocols. These protocols will be easy to use and effective in solving concrete problems instead of broad generalizations or focusing on exceptional use cases. The Github generation of wireless engineers will be born.

As their name suggests, the big breakthrough of SDRs is that many components that were previously implemented in hardware can be recreated in software. That means they can be easily changed, which allows wide-ranging and continuing experimentation. Couple that with plummeting costs, and we could be seeing SDRs built into practically everything: Digital signage, smart light poles, vending machines, ATMs, home appliances, and many more devices can all have an SDR in them and provide mobile broadband or other wireless solutions with licensed spectrum, as well.
From that, it might seem that SDRs are just a superior, programmable form of the Internet of Things. But here's where things get interesting: Any device will be able to be part of a distributed ad-hoc, federated, self-organizing broadband network. Running a mobile network will be less about installing large antennas and more about automating the management of distributed networks that get built on top of third-party owned equipment.
In other words, once SDRs are cheap and commonplace, and can be found in all kinds of everyday devices, they can then be turned into the ultimate mesh network simply by tweaking their software. That avoids the current problem with mesh networks, which is that they are often hard to set up -- a barrier to their widespread use.

These SDR-based networks would have another big advantage. Since they could potentially be on a huge scale, with multiple nodes in a single home, there is potential for obfuscatory routing of the kind used by Tor. Another interesting possibility is to build the ultra-cheap SDRs into drones, and use them as part of the ad-hoc mesh networks too. None of these approaches is guaranteed to stop the NSA and friends from spying on everyone, but they certainly offer the hope of making it considerably more difficult.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: ad hoc networks, mesh networks, sdrs, software defined radio

25 Comments

Verizon Tries To 'Debunk' News Reports Pointing Out Its New Wireless Plans Stink

Wireless

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

Wed, Jul 13th 2016 6:41am — Karl Bode

Last week, we noted how Verizon had unveiled some new wireless data plans intended to be a competitive response to T-Mobile. In very Verizon-esque fashion, the new plans involved first and foremost raising already-industry high data prices another 17%, then scolding media outlets that called it a rate hike. The new plans also involved taking a number of ideas T-Mobile and other carriers had implemented years ago, then somehow making them worse.

For example, Verizon belatedly introduced a "Carryover" rollover data option. Under most implementations of this idea (as with T-Mobile), you're allowed to take any unused data at the end of the month and store it in the bank for future use. But under Verizon's implementation, this data only lasts one month -- and you have to burn through your existing allotment of data before it can even be used. This is Verizon's attempt to give the illusion of offering an innovative and competing service, but saddling it with caveats to make it incredibly less useful.

Not happy when the media quite correctly pointed out that its new data plans weren't much to write home about, Verizon issued a second, amusing press release clarifying the "myth v. reality" of what Verizon's offering versus what the media reported. As its opening salvo, Verizon repeats its claim that a 17% rate hike isn't a rate hike if you squint and look at the numbers in just the right way:

Myth: Verizon is raising prices with its new plans.

Reality: The price per GB is lower, across the board. The price went from $30 to $17.50 per GB on the S size plan and from $5.56 to $4.58 on XXL.

This is, of course, not unlike the cable industry trying to claim you're not really paying too much for cable because you're now getting more amazing value per channel. In reality, usage caps are already arbitrary constructs with no ties to real-world costs, and Verizon's entire plan structure is carefully built to drive as many customers to the most expensive data plans. Plans they may not need, but sign up for simply because they have no idea what a megabyte even is, and want to avoid any risk of absurd $15 per gigabyte overage fees.

More amusing perhaps is Verizon's attempt to claim that the Carryover data plan outlined above isn't just copying a relatively good idea and making it worse (and charging more), it's Verizon's incredible delivery of "the entire package" and an "incredible value":

Myth: Verizon is copying the competition with introducing Carryover and Safety Mode; Verizon’s competitors offer the same type of plans, but for less money.

Reality: No other wireless company can offer the entire package. We bring together options customers tell us they want, in a new plan with incredible value - and a new My Verizon app that puts you in control - all on the best network.

Verizon's modus operandi in response to heightened competition from T-Mobile has been to pretend that the company's network is just so good, it doesn't have to compete on price. In fact, as T-Mobile has applied more and more pressure, Verizon has gone so far as to claim that "price sensitive" customers don't matter. But that's not how real competition works. You don't get to magically choose when you have to compete on price, though with a generation of being a government-pampered duopoly under its belt, Verizon executives clearly believe otherwise.

Verizon's tactic of charging "premium pricing for a premium service" worked for a while, but as T-Mobile's network improves and the company has started hoovering up the sector's valuable postpaid subscribers, Verizon's been forced to take more serious notice. So far Verizon's response has been to try and pantomime competition, assuming that consumers and the media are too stupid to notice the difference. Verizon slowly but surely learning that you don't get to head fake real competitive pressure should prove interesting to watch.

Filed Under: competition, mobile, prices
Companies: verizon

46 Comments

European Telcos Threaten To Withhold Next Gen Wireless Upgrades If Net Neutrality Rules Passed

Wireless

from the chicken-little's-manifesto dept

Tue, Jul 12th 2016 6:30am — Karl Bode

Tell me if you've heard this one before: broadband carriers are once again claiming that if regulators pass net neutrality rules, their ability to invest in next-generation networks will somehow be severely hindered, causing no limit of damage to consumers, puppies, and the time-space continuum. That's basically the line U.S. broadband providers tried to feed the FCC in the States. But no matter how many industry-tried, cherry picking think tank studies have tried to claim that net neutrality hurts broadband investment, real world data and ongoing deployment show that just isn't true.

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 provide a few flimsy, faux-technical justifications. The rules are so filled with loopholes as to be useless, and while they technically took effect on April 30, 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.

With BEREC's public comment period set to end on July 18, European net neutrality advocates are giving it one last shot to toughen up the shoddy rules. Fearing they might succeed, a coalition of twenty European telcos (and the hardware vendors that feed at their collective trough) have taped together something they're calling their "5G Manifesto," (pdf) which trots out some pretty familiar fear mongering for those who've remotely followed the last fifteen years of net neutrality debate.

Among them is the continued, not so veiled threat that technological progress will stop dead in its tracks if these companies don't get the kind of consumer net neutrality protections they want (namely, none):

"The EU and Member States must reconcile the need for Open Internet with pragmatic rules that foster innovation. The telecom Industry warns that the current Net Neutrality guidelines, as put forward by BEREC, create significant uncertainties around 5G return on investment. Investments are therefore likely to be delayed unless regulators take a positive stance on innovation and stick to it."

And the threat doesn't just involve next-gen wireless. The carriers also proceed to effectively argue that unless they're allowed to include huge gaping loopholes (like the existing exemption of "specialized services"), other technologies like VR, smart cars and smart cities will all be hurt (much like ISPs here in the States tried to argue that net neutrality rules would somehow hurt medical technology unless ISPs were allowed to discriminate):

"In this context we must highlight the danger of restrictive Net Neutrality rules, in the context of 5G technologies, business applications and beyond. 5G introduces the concept of “Network Slicing” to accommodate a wide-variety of industry verticals’ business models on a common platform, at scale and with services guarantees. Automated driving, smart grid control, virtual reality and public safety services are examples of usecases with distinguished characteristics which call for a flexible and elastic configuration of resources in networks and platforms, on a continuous basis, depending on demand, context and the nature of the service."

This is all, for lack of a more scientific term, unequivocal and total crap. The argument that "net neutrality rules will stop us from keeping your pace maker from working" is fear-based prattle with no foundation in reality. If anything, the EU's rules go well out of their way to ensure traffic can be treated differently (to an extreme fault). As for 5G, these upgrades are a necessary part of doing business, and carriers will invest in networks whether or not there's some flimsy net neutrality rules governing their behavior. Realize too that the "manifesto" is talking about rules as currently written that effectively say it's ok to violate net neutrality provided you support your anti-competitive behavior in veiled, faux technical justifications (see comments made by Sir Tim Berners-Lee).

In short, people should understand these European companies' lawyers and lobbyists directly wrote net neutrality rules pretty much ensuring they can do whatever they like -- about as "certain" as things are going to get -- yet they're still god-damned complaining.

When it isn't busy making empty threats, the manifesto trots out some similarly-meaningless promises, such as claims that the "right" net neutrality rules will result in scheduled large-scale 5G demonstrations by 2018, and the launch of 5G commercially in at least one city in every EU country by 2020. Again though, this was already happening with or without net neutrality rules. Tying the success or failure of network investment to net neutrality is a hollow bogeyman, one we've seen used repeatedly in countries where carrier executives twitch at the faintest specter of a regulator actually doing its job and protecting consumers from the aggressive abuse of uncompetitive telecom markets.

Filed Under: broadband, eu, europe, net neutrality, telcos, upgrades, wireless

Verizon 'Competes' With T-Mobile By Raising Prices, Then Denying It's A Price Hike

Wireless

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

Thu, Jul 7th 2016 6:32am — Karl Bode

For years T-Mobile has been making some welcome changes to U.S. wireless service, implementing everything from free data while roaming internationally, to rollover data plans that let you keep unused data. T-Mobile's strange, new tactic of treating consumers well has paid incredible dividends for the company, which has been adding significantly more postpaid wireless subscribers per quarter than any other major carrier. Between the elimination of consumer pain points and its foul-mouthed CEO, T-Mobile's been a welcome change for the sector (just ignore its attack on the EFF and failure to support net neutrality).

This is of course in stark contrast to Verizon Wireless, which has desperately been trying to avoid competing with T-Mobile on price, even proudly proclaiming that it's happy to kick "price sensitive" customers to the curb. The carrier's primary tactic has been to claim that the company offers such an incredible wireless experience," it doesn't need to compete on price. But as T-Mobile has gained ground and improved its own network, that tactic has started to falter.

So this week, Verizon Wireless unveiled a new attempt to try and 'compete' with T-Mobile, the primary focus being to raise already high prices another 17%:

"On Wednesday, Verizon overhauled its main offerings for monthly customers, increasing most data allowances by 33%, adding a rollover feature for unused data and cutting prices for using phones in Mexico and Canada. But it also raised its standard monthly charges on all the new plans by as much as 17%. For example, a 6 GB plan that cost $60 per month will be replaced by an 8 GB plan that costs $70.

So you'll get a bit more data, but you'll continue to pay a steep premium for it. Keep in mind that Verizon's wireless data prices were already some of the highest in the industry. Also realize that Verizon carefully analyzes customer usage patterns and designs their shared data plans to drive as many customers as possible to the more expensive plans. One of the biggest benefits of such shared data plans for carriers? Most consumers have no idea what a gigabyte even is. As such, they sign up for bigger, more expensive plans they likely don't need -- just to avoid the hassle of worrying about overage fees.

This being Verizon, the company was quick to claim that charging 17% more wasn't a price hike, clinging tightly to the narrative that it doesn't have to compete on price because it's just that awesome:

"But Verizon executives say that customers will pay for the increased data allowances and superior quality of their network. "Customers are using more and more data on our network,” Nancy Clark, senior vice president for marketing and operations, said in an interview with Fortune. “We needed to build bigger data plans and the value is better than ever.”..."This is in no way a price increase,” Clark added."

To try and counter the price hikes that aren't price hikes, Verizon made a number of other changes to the way its wireless plans work, including offering a new "safety mode" where users can avoid overage fees, but have their connections throttled back to 128 kbps (for an extra $5 a month). The carrier also unveiled a new rollover data option (which Verizon last year breathlessly declared it wouldn't follow T-Mobile on). But in very Verizon fashion, the company made a number of changes to the way rollover data is supposed to work in order to make it less useful for consumers:

"In addition to the price and allotment changes, Verizon's also following T-Mobile's lead in offering "Carryover Data," a rollover data plan that lets you forward unused data to the next month. But like AT&T's version Verizon has muted the benefit of the idea by forcing users to burn through their existing allotment before being able to touch your carried over data allotment -- and by making the data expire if you don't use it in a month."

In other words, Verizon Wireless' attempt to compete with T-Mobile involves raising prices and copying a bunch of ideas T-Mobile implemented years ago -- then somehow magically making them worse. Watching Verizon Wireless try and "compete" is much like watching a rhinoceros do the electric slide -- it's just too foreign a concept to ever really seem natural.

Filed Under: competition, mobile, price hike
Companies: t-mobile, verizon

26 Comments

NY Post Craps On NYC's Plan To Offer Free Wi-Fi -- Because The Homeless Might Watch Porn

Wireless

from the worry-wart dept

Tue, Jun 21st 2016 6:23am — Karl Bode

As you might have heard, New York City recently launched one of the biggest free Wi-Fi initiatives ever conceived. Under the program, some 7,500 Wi-Fi kiosks will provide gigabit Wi-Fi, free phone calls to anywhere in the country (via Vonage), as well as access to a device recharging station, 311, 911, 411 and city services (via an integrated Android tablet). The city is installing ten a day -- most at old payphone locations -- and hopes to have 500 of the kiosks in place by July. It's a pretty impressive effort, and by most measures providing fast, free connectivity to the city's five boroughs has been something to celebrate.

Unless you're the New York Post, which decided to spend precious calories this week worrying about how the system potentially lets the city's homeless population watch porn:

"...The plan badly backfired when scores of homeless men — and some schoolchildren — soon realized they could surf porn sites all day on the city’s dime using the communal Android-run tablets and gratis Wi-Fi."

Of course the Post kind of floats over the amazing fact that the kiosks let everybody in the city access any information they want at any time, but the Post also fails to really offer any evidence that there's waves upon waves of masturbating homeless brigands terrifying city residents. In fact the story proceeds to note that the company behind the initiative, LinkNYC, has already ramped up filtering of pornographic websites to at least make it a little more difficult. In fact there's really not much of any meat to the clams the city's plan "backfired" at all, outside of a quote from an indignant out of towner:

"I used to come here in the ’70s, and I remember thinking Times Square was as skeezy as you could get, but I was wrong,” said former New Yorker Richard Herzberg, 61, who now lives in Dallas, Texas. "This is as skeezy as Times Square could get. I mean, in the old days there was plenty of porn, but you could only see it behind closed doors. So at least there was that level of modesty."

While the Post would apparently prefer it if we dismantled a useful, citywide Wi-Fi network to fix a nonexistent or relatively minor problem, it's worth remembering that masturbating in public remains a criminal offense, making the fact that it's happening at a free Wi-Fi pylon somewhat irrelevant. And while there's an argument to be made for loss of city character as New York evolved from punk rock minefield to glorified shopping mall, city residents that remember the apocalyptic nature of 70s and 80s NYC likely see sporadic homeless porn consumption as the very least of the city's worries.

Filed Under: free wifi, homeless, new york, nyc, porn, times square, wifi

50 Comments

As Expected, Verizon's Attempt To Woo Millennials Is Falling Flat On Its Face

Failures

from the hip-to-be-square dept

Thu, May 26th 2016 6:27am — Karl Bode

For years now Verizon has made it clear that it no longer wants to be in the fixed-line broadband business. Despite countless billions in taxpayer subsidies and numerous unfinished obligations, the company has all-but frozen serious fiber deployments. It has also been either selling off unwanted DSL customers to smaller, ill-equipped telcos (which which almost always ends poorly for everybody except Verizon accountants and lawyers) or has quite literally tried to drive unwanted users away with both rate hikes and apathy.

Instead, Verizon executives decided to try and transform the stodgy old telco into a sexy new Millennial-focused advertising juggernaut. So far that has involved launching the company's Millennial-targeted "Go90" streaming video service, spending $4.4 billion on acquiring AOL, trying to acquire the drifting wreckage that is Yahoo, and developing controversial stealth ad tracking technology to build covert profiles of customer behavior as they wander around the Internet.

Despite the company heavily marketing Go90, zero rating the service so it doesn't count against usage caps, and even giving away data to users that try the service, it has seen extremely limited adoption among Verizon's target demographic. Verizon has refused to release subscriber numbers for the service, and the Go90 app is slowly falling down both the Apple App Store and Google Play rankings. Things have been so underwhelming, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam was forced to admit to attendees of an investor conference this week that the company may have "over-hyped" the platform:

"It did get a little bit overhyped, and we contributed to that to some extent," McAdam said in a keynote appearance at the 44th Annual J.P. Morgan Conference. McAdam explained that Verizon's strength is in building networks, not necessarily developing popular content. "It's not exactly our strong suit," McAdam conceded.

Granted everybody not at Verizon knew that the company's attempt to magically make an old telco sexy for millennials would be a hard sell, especially given Verizon's long history of trying and failing to be content innovators. The company has long tried and failed when leaning outside of its core competency, whether that's operating its own app store, running a streaming venture with Red Box, or briefly operating a news website where authors were prohibited from talking about things like surveillance or net neutrality. Phone companies, after a generation of regulatory capture and "yes men" boardroom culture -- simply aren't genetically built for real disruption and innovation outside their core competency, no matter how many executives seem to believe otherwise.

McAdam then tried to walk back his comments a little, and tried to argue that Go90 isn't a failure, it's just a vision that's going to take a lot of time, and a lot of money (which won't be spent on networks), to execute:

"We've seen enough success to make us excited about continuing to work it... "Go90 is in a good spot from our perspective, we're going to continue to pursue it. But our expectations are realistic."

As a writer I generally love telecom investor conferences for the simple fact that for whatever reason, phone and cable executives still haven't figured out that the public can hear what's being said at them. What usually happens is a telecom executive will say something uncharacteristically candid, then the company's marketing department will jump in to try and spin the comments a few weeks later. As such it shouldn't be long before Verizon unveils a new marketing barrage that spins McAdam's comments and claims Verizon's quest to become sexy in the eyes of Millennials is going better than ever.

Filed Under: go90, marketing, millennials, video

15 Comments

Netflix Settles Throttling 'Controversy' By Letting Mobile Users Throttle Themselves (Or Not)

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the the-controversy-that-wasn't dept

Mon, May 9th 2016 6:23am — Karl Bode

Last month, you might recall that Netflix found itself at the center of some "controversy" after it admitted it was throttling AT&T and Verizon customer Netflix streams to 600 kbps. At the time, the company stated it was only doing so to help out customers on metered usage plans. Netflix also stated that it wasn't throttling the streams of Sprint and T-Mobile users, since "historically those two companies have had more consumer-friendly policies" (read: still offer unlimited data plans).

The cable industry and net neutrality opponents quickly tried to claim Netflix's admission meant the company was a hypocrite on net neutrality, with some even calling for an "investigation." The telecom industry's PR push was short lived however, given most people realized that Netflix was actually trying to help consumers out, and it's kind of odd to punish a company for technically throttling its own service. At the end of the day, the consensus was that the only real thing Netflix did wrong was not being fully transparent about what it was doing, and why.

Fast forward to this month and Netflix says it has now released a tool that will let users control themselves whether their stream is throttled, and how much. According to a company blog post, all users on mobile plans will now be throttled to 600 kbps, though you'll have the option of changing that in the settings of the latest version of the app, including setting it to unlimited streaming. Notes Netflix:

"The default setting will enable you to stream about 3 hours of TV shows and movies per gigabyte of data. In terms of bitrates, that currently amounts to about 600 Kilobits per second. Our testing found that, on cellular networks, this setting balances good video quality with lower data usage to help avoid exceeding data caps and incurring overage fees. If you have a mobile data plan with a higher data cap, you can adjust this setting to stream at higher bitrates. Our goal is to give you more control and greater choice in managing your data usage whether you’re on an unlimited mobile plan or one that’s more restrictive."

So, the story ends with Netflix giving consumers a tool to manage their own usage, and being totally clear about what they're doing, which should make everybody happy, right? Not so much. Net neutrality opponents at TechFreedom were quick to blast the media with a press release trying to claim that Netflix was being held to a different standard:

"Three cheers for Netflix for user empowerment, but there’s no principled reason why broadband operators shouldn’t be able to give users the same option,” said Berin Szóka. “The rhetoric for ‘net neutrality’ has always been about user empowerment. But the FCC wound up writing a hard-line rule that seems to completely ban broadband providers from adjusting video quality even if users want that. That’s crazy. It means consumers won’t get the kind of master interface that can manage quality across all video platforms — which, in turn, would make ordinary users comfortable experimenting with multiple video platforms."

That is, unfortunately, a very confused interpretation of what net neutrality actually is. Net neutrality rules are only necessary in telecom due to the lack of competition. Without competition, ISPs can use their monopoly over the last mile to hinder competitors or competing services (of which there are numerous examples), or to give their own services an unfair market advantage (something both Comcast and Verizon are currently doing with zero rating and usage caps). Users can, in stark contrast, stop using Netflix should they find the company engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

Ever since Netflix started speaking out about things like usage caps and net neutrality, the company's been targeted by the telecom industry and its loyal allies as the very worst sort of villain. In this case, the difference between Netflix trying to help capped users and ISPs using a lack of competition to unfair advantage -- should be night and day to most people. Unless of course you're desperately clinging to the false narrative that net neutrality isn't a real issue, and think a generation of easily documentable anti-competitive behavior on the part of incumbent ISPs is some kind of mass hallucination.

Filed Under: bandwidth, choice, mobile, throttling, video streaming
Companies: at&t, netflix, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

15 Comments

Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating

Studies

from the hidden-hidden-costs dept

Thu, Apr 14th 2016 6:22am — Karl Bode

With the FCC glacially pondering whether or not zero rating (exempting some content from usage caps) is a bad idea, the wireless industry has decided to try and settle the argument. According to a new study by the wireless industry, 94% of Millennials are more likely to try a new online service if it's part of a free data offering, 98% are more likely to stay with a carrier that offers such services, and 94% of Millennials are likely to use more data if it doesn't count against their data plan. As intended, the survey resulted in a lot of varied news headlines insisting that "consumers actually like ISPs to play favorites on mobile data caps."

The study is, the CTIA proceeds to claim, proof positive that zero rating is a great thing for everybody, from companies to consumers. Just ask Meredith Attwell Baker, former FCC Commissioner, former Comcast lobbyist, and now the top lobbyist for the nation's biggest wireless operators:

"It is no surprise that Americans embrace free data services that offer wireless consumers more data, more competitive choices and more flexibility to try new mobile applications and content. Free data services empower consumers with the freedom to choose what works for their mobile life, and that’s an outcome that everyone should support,” said CTIA President and CEO Meredith Attwell Baker."

If a revolving-door telecom lobbyist saying it's true doesn't convince you, here's an accompanying graphic of stock photo Millennials thrilled at the very idea of zero rating:

So, yeah, some problems. I requested and received the methodology (pdf) used in the commissioned Harris poll, and you'll be shocked to learn that the questions asked weren't particularly nuanced. After asking survey participants whether they were familiar with such terms as zero rating or sponsored data (the results of that inquiry weren't shared), the survey basically just consists of asking consumers whether or not they like "free stuff." If somebody's unaware of the current zero rating net neutrality debate and is asked if they like "free stuff," it seems pretty clear what kind of answer they're going to give.

And therein sits the problem with zero rating. The majority of consumers still don't really understand what zero rating is, much less that there's some obvious hidden costs involved. As such, when approached with "free" services, they're thrilled.

They generally don't understand that the usage caps selected by their ISP are an arbitrary, artificial construct to begin with, untethered to financial or network congestion reality. Or that the very practice of giving wealthier, bigger companies cap-exempt status puts other smaller companies (and non-profits and educational efforts) at a very real disadvantage in the market. Or that over the years, data has shown that caps aren't an effective way to target network congestion, can hinder innovation, hurt competitors (especially if an ISP's exempting only its own services), and confuse consumers, many of whom aren't even sure what a gigabyte is. So yes, it's complicated, and requires some education.

Sure, even after being informed there's surely many people who simply adore the idea of getting anything for "free." But had the CTIA made the slightest effort to inform survey participants or explore zero rating more deeply, the survey's results would have been dramatically different.

Filed Under: misleading polls, net neutrality, surveys, wireless, zero rating
Companies: ctia, harris

As ISPs Push Harder On Usage Caps, House Pushes Bill Preventing The FCC From Doing Anything About It

Politics

from the stripping-the-fcc-of-its-power-to-protect-consumers dept

Tue, Apr 12th 2016 6:30am — Karl Bode

In recent weeks, we've noted how ISPs are now moving beyond broadband usage caps and overage fees, and have begun charging users a $30-$35 premium if they want to avoid usage caps entirely. While the industry often dresses this up as everything from "improved flexibility and choice" to something necessary for the sake of fairness, it is, quite simply, an aggressive rate hike on uncompetitive markets. Users are being socked with dramatic new limits and fees -- simply because most have no real competitors to flee to.

Entirely uncoincidentally, the House is now pushing for new legislation that would hamstring the FCC's ability to regulate broadband rates. The "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act" (pdf) is set to be debated this week in Congress, and would, according to a press release by the Energy and Commerce Committee, prevent the FCC from regulating rates charged for broadband Internet, "just as the administration promised when they reclassified access to the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act."

Except according to a Medium post by attorney Harold Feld, the bill tries to use a special definition of "rate regulation" to ban the FCC from, well, doing much of anything:

"H.R. 2666’s language would protect broadband providers from any “review” or “enforcement” of their prices, and prevent the FCC from even “declaring” — let alone addressing — any broadband prices or fees as even “unreasonable.” To make this even more clear, the bill prohibits the FCC from reviewing any prices, fees, or overages “regardless of any other provision of law.” That goes way beyond the FCC’s traditional rate setting authority. “Any other provision of law” includes the FCC’s mandate to promote competition and its consumer protection authority."

So basically, the House, at the behest of large ISPs, is looking to further neuter the FCC. Not only so it can't protect consumers from usage caps and price gouging, but to try and derail the FCC's plan to expand consumer broadband privacy protections, or say, open up the cable set top box to additional competition.

It should probably be reiterated that while the FCC says it does have the authority to regulate some rates under Title II and its net neutrality rules (preventing "paid prioritization," for example), the agency so far has shown no interest in really doing so. Whether it's a $300 million national broadband map that fails to show broadband prices (at industry behest), to the agency's continued blind eye to hidden fees, usage caps and zero rating, the FCC has made it abundantly clear that it finds a large amount of the broadband industry's current price gouging just "creative experimentation."

But while the FCC hasn't done much about broadband prices directly, it has tried to shore up competition in the market so prices drop organically, including support for municipal broadband. Between this, the agency's push for privacy rules, and net neutrality, the House has made it abundantly clear it plans to punish the FCC for standing up to giant ISPs like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. As such, if it isn't a series of pointless, FCC "fact finding" hearings, it's yet another bill like this one that aims to tie the FCC's arms securely behind its back.

As it stands, there remain just two serious ways to roll back net neutrality and the FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II: win the election and gut the FCC and its decision, or win the ongoing lawsuits against the FCC (a ruling on that front is expected soon). The House likely knows this, but is apparently keen to try and earn its telecom campaign contributions by putting on one hell of a taxpayer-funded show.

Filed Under: congress, consumer protection, fcc, fees, isps, rate regulations, regulation, scams

61 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

Tuesday
08:38	Why Are People Using Ad Blockers? Ads Can Eat Up To 79% Of Mobile Data Allotments (60)
Thursday
13:48	YouTube Flips, Now Thinks T-Mobile's Abuse Of Net Neutrality Is Ok, Following A Few Small Changes (16)
03:24	EU Court Of Justice Advocate General Says Open WiFi Operators Shouldn't Be Liable For Infringement (9)
Wednesday
06:28	5G Wireless Hype Overshadows Fact Nobody Actually Knows What 5G Is Yet (33)
Monday
09:34	India Bans Zero Rating As The U.S. Pays The Price For Embracing It (23)
06:26	Verizon Gives Net Neutrality A Giant Middle Finger, Exempts Own Video Service From Wireless Usage Caps (39)
Friday
11:40	New Report To FCC Details How Binge On Violates Net Neutrality (22)
Wednesday
15:33	After Aereo's Collapse, Founder Hopes To Disrupt Wireless Broadband Market With 'Starry' (28)
Friday
06:30	Legislator Thinks Warrantless Cell Phone Searches The Best Way To Combat Distracted Driving (47)
Thursday
06:36	Netflix Applauds T-Mobile's Binge On, Forgets It Opposed Zero Rating Just Last Year (18)
Wednesday
08:33	Here's Verizon's Shiny New Assault On Net Neutrality (27)
Tuesday
11:37	Clarifying The Bullshit From John Legere: What T-Mobile Is Really Doing And Why It Violates Net Neutrality (31)
09:30	John Legere Just Can't Stop The Misleading Bullshit About BingeOn (44)
Monday
14:03	AT&T Is Happy To Remove Wireless Broadband Caps, But Only If You Sign Up For Its TV Services (23)
Friday
10:37	Streaming Video Company Drops Out Of BingeOn To Protest John Legere's Attack On EFF; It Will Still Get Throttled, Though (25)
Thursday
10:38	T-Mobile Doubles Down On Its Blatant Lies, Says Claims It's Throttling Are 'Bullshit' And That I'm A 'Jerk' (63)
Monday
10:37	T-Mobile Is Flat Out Lying: It's Throttling Video Even Though It Says It's Not (44)
Wednesday
09:35	Even The Power Of The Dark Side Can't Save Disney & ESPN From Cord Cutting (32)
08:26	What Net Neutrality? T-Mobile Abusing Its 'Binge-On' Effort To Throttle Non-Partner Video (15)
Tuesday
11:34	Facebook Spam Tricks The Internet Into Supporting Company's AOL-ification Of Developing Nations (19)
Monday
12:41	The FCC Responds To Comcast's Latest Assault On Net Neutrality...With A Sheepish Letter (14)
08:29	Blackberry CEO Gives Public One More Reason To Not Buy Its Phones By Arguing For Greater Law Enforcement Cooperation (18)
Thursday
08:30	Presidential Hopeful Marco Rubio Defends AT&T's Right To Write Bad State Broadband Law (26)
06:41	Mother Blames Daughter's Suicide On WiFi Allergy (106)
Friday
14:04	T-Mobile And MetroPCS Go All In On The Horrible Precedent Of Zero Rating (18)
Tuesday
15:30	T-Mobile Exempts Video Streams From Wireless Data Caps, Sets A Horrible Precedent (31)
Wednesday
06:20	AT&T Lawyers Want You To Know That AT&T's CEO Will Never Listen To Customer Suggestions (56)
Thursday
06:01	No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware (37)
Tuesday
08:19	Parents Sue School, Claim Wi-Fi Made Son Sick (211)
05:30	T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans (62)

from the bad-precedent dept

from the distributed,-ad-hoc,-federated,-and-self-organizing dept

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

from the chicken-little's-manifesto dept

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

from the worry-wart dept

from the hip-to-be-square dept

from the the-controversy-that-wasn't dept

from the hidden-hidden-costs dept

from the stripping-the-fcc-of-its-power-to-protect-consumers dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More