FCC calls out AT&T and Verizon for zero-rating their own services

[CommandMan7]

On Thursday, the FCC sent separate letters to both AT&T and Verizon expressing their concerns over zero-rating. For those who don't know, zero rating is when an internet service provider allows certain data to not be counted towards a general usage limit. Net Neutrality advocates are strongly against this practice, as it allows ISP's to give their own media services (AT&T's DirectTV now and Verizon's Go90) an advantage over other media streaming sites. This issue is currently at the forefront of the Net Neutrality debate, due to the 2015 FCC ruling that prohibited much of the worst kinds of behavior. This ruling, however, left rules about zero-rating programs vague.

 

Quote

Zero-rating has been the big gray area in the open internet debate for the past two years, since the net neutrality rules the FCC passed in 2015 do not give any specific judgment on sponsored data programs. Wilkins even notes in the Verizon letter that the FCC’s concern is “not with zero-rating per se.”

 

Opinion: The FCC is trying to assert itself ahead of the Trump administration, which is strongly against the 2015 ruling. I can only hope that the 2015 ruling is allowed to stand, but it should be noted the one of the Republican FCC commissioners who was against the 2015 ruling was quoted as saying:

Quote

"For any unilateral action taken by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at the Chairman’s direction in the next 49 days can quickly be undone by that same bureau after January, 20, 2017."

Personally, I expect that once the Trump administration is in control, there will likely be a deadlock in the fight for net neutrality. The 2015 ruling will stand, although they may choose not to enforce it as strongly as they should. On the other hand, net neutrality advocates will likely be unable to make any advances against stopping zero-rating programs.

 

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-verizon-att-zero-rating-net-neutrality-letter-directv-now-2016-12

[vanished]

good to see someone's paying attention to this. It always seemed sketchy from the start to be honest; sure, they make it seem like a friendly desirable thing, not counting some data towards your total, but good or bad, that's still treating some traffic different than others, and that's not ok.

[ARikozuM]

I feel like this administration is going to be too powerful for the country. It's gearing up to displace nearly everything that's been done the past two presidencies (Bush and Obama).

[exyia]

I found it hilariously hypocritical when people would be on the net neutrality, "service providers are evil" bandwagon, yet they cheered when they started offering this "free data" for said services

 

net neutrality goes both ways people. equal is equal. so many hypocrites out there that think net neutrality is just about internet speeds

[SansVarnic]

What about T-mobile's binge? isnt that the same or am I missing something? 

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

What about T-mobile's binge? isnt that the same or am I missing something? 

It's similar, but T-Mobile doesn't own any of the services, and they basically told the FCC to fuck themselves and that they'll do what they want as they're part of Deutsch Telekom, and not a US company.

[QueenDemetria]

6 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

What about T-mobile's binge? isnt that the same or am I missing something? 

It zero-rates more than their own services(like Netflix, Youtube, etc.), so they are able to slide under the rules. If they only zero-rated T-Mobile TV(or whatever its called) then they also would be getting this letter.

 

T-Mobile latest thing is to just offer '"unlimited" everything', so they are technically zero-rating everything, and since carriers aren't classified as ISP's they can get away with throttling(no John, its not "optimizing" web traffic.).

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

It's similar, but T-Mobile doesn't own any of the services, and they basically told the FCC to fuck themselves and that they'll do what they want as they're part of Deutsch Telekom, and not a US company.

Pretty sure that's not how it works though.  If they operate in country X, they need to abide by their laws.

[Drak3]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Pretty sure that's not how it works though.  If they operate in country X, they need to abide by their laws.

Some companies are special cookies, and think that a certain country's rules shouldn't apply to them, like Audi, Volkswagen, and Deutsch Telekom.

Notice that they're all German.

But no company that opposes Net Neutrality is playing by the FCC's rules either. They don't give a shit, and they can easily spoof "evidence" that some level of throttling is possible via bottlenecks.

[bobhays]

53 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

good to see someone's paying attention to this. It always seemed sketchy from the start to be honest; sure, they make it seem like a friendly desirable thing, not counting some data towards your total, but good or bad, that's still treating some traffic different than others, and that's not ok.

 

42 minutes ago, exyia said:

I found it hilariously hypocritical when people would be on the net neutrality, "service providers are evil" bandwagon, yet they cheered when they started offering this "free data" for said services

 

net neutrality goes both ways people. equal is equal. so many hypocrites out there that think net neutrality is just about internet speeds

I'd have to disagree with you guys. My opinion on net neutrality is that no service should be HINDERED (i.e throttling) because of competition. Allowing your own services to go faster or for free doesn't hinder any other services. The reason I say this is because it's very similar to a company like say Razer, selling a laptop and saying if you buy our laptop you get our mouse for free. They are using their position in one market to help push their product in another market and I see nothing wrong with that. The issue exists when they say Razer laptops will not work with certain functions of Logitech mice because we want you to buy our mice.

[BuckGup]

How about stop throttling.

[DeScruff]

36 minutes ago, bobhays said:

 

I'd have to disagree with you guys. My opinion on net neutrality is that no service should be HINDERED (i.e throttling) because of competition. Allowing your own services to go faster or for free doesn't hinder any other services.

Isn't that an Oxymoron?
By making your own services faster, you are admitting you can let people have a faster speed. And so you are throttling every other service.

If my company only offered 5/1 internet (and I was the only ISP available - which is a common thing), but for my own version of Netflix It had 1000/200. Its quite obvious I am 100% able to offer you a faster speed, but I am purposely throttling everything else.

This isn't like Razer including mice with their laptops. Offering my own version of Netflix for free to my customers would like that. (And I think is perfectly fair)
This is more like... If Samsung said their laptops used SATA II, and USB 2.0 ports, unless you used a Samsung SSD/peripherals. Then they get SATA III and USB 3.1 speeds.

[QueenDemetria]

7 minutes ago, bobhays said:

 

I'd have to disagree with you guys. My opinion on net neutrality is that no service should be HINDERED (i.e throttling) because of competition. Allowing your own services to go faster or for free doesn't hinder any other services. The reason I say this is because it's very similar to a company like say Razer, selling a laptop and saying if you buy our laptop you get our mouse for free. They are using their position in one market to help push their product in another market and I see nothing wrong with that. The issue exists when they say Razer laptops will not work with certain functions of Logitech mice because we want you to buy our mice.

Its more that its an anti competitive tactic on a service that should be neutral. Lets say I run an ISP called DemiCorp. DemiCorp also has its own video service called DemiVideo. If you use DemiVideo on a DemiCorp internet connection you will get full HD without buffering, and you can watch all the content you want from DemiVideo without worry.... but if you want to use Netflix or YouTube you are limited to 480p, you are put on a lower priority list so buffering times will be higher, and its capped so you can watch all the video you want as long as you don't go over 5GB. So, why would I use Netflix or YouTube if it has all those restrictions? Are Netflix and YouTube actually bad? No, because they do offer full HD, low buffering times, and no "bandwidth" limits, but some company is making their competitors products worse(like actually worse, not just appear) to make their services more appealing.

 

ISP's are making an issue of "not being able to handle the bandwidth" which is why they throttle and cap, but then when they zero-rate their own services it really shows that the network isn't the issue, and the truth shows because they are really just seeking higher profits by using their monopoly of networks steal business from other companies, and preventing said companies from being able to compete(you cant serve this area, we already are!). Anti competitiveness aside, the reason why the FCC can make an issue out of this is because most of the networks are government funded(subsidized, whatever), so when ISP's(even carriers) misuse the government funded networks for their own advantage, the government can step in and say "Hey, you're being a dick, bro", and stop the ISP's from using loopholes to exploit both competing companies and consumers.

[patrickjp93]

4 minutes ago, QueenDemetria said:

Its more that its an anti competitive tactic on a service that should be neutral. Lets say I run an ISP called DemiCorp. DemiCorp also has its own video service called DemiVideo. If you use DemiVideo on a DemiCorp internet connection you will get full HD without buffering, and you can watch all the content you want from DemiVideo without worry.... but if you want to use Netflix or YouTube you are limited to 480p, you are put on a lower priority list so buffering times will be higher, and its capped so you can watch all the video you want as long as you don't go over 5GB. So, why would I use Netflix or YouTube if it has all those restrictions? Are Netflix and YouTube actually bad? No, because they do offer full HD, low buffering times, and no "bandwidth" limits, but some company is making their competitors products worse(like actually worse, not just appear) to make their services more appealing.

 

ISP's are making an issue of "not being able to handle the bandwidth" which is why they throttle and cap, but then when they zero-rate their own services it really shows that the network isn't the issue, and the truth shows because they are really just seeking higher profits by using their monopoly of networks steal business from other companies, and preventing said companies from being able to compete(you cant serve this area, we already are!). Anti competitiveness aside, the reason why the FCC can make an issue out of this is because most of the networks are government funded(subsidized, whatever), so when ISP's(even carriers) misuse the government funded networks for their own advantage, the government can step in and say "Hey, you're being a dick, bro", and stop the ISP's from using loopholes to exploit both competing companies and consumers.

Except you're going way overboard and conflating things. AT&T and Verizon aren't limiting your choices or forcing you to buffer on one service but not their own. And yes, being able to offering integrated services and packages should be legal, and these companies should be allowed to defray their own costs. In this case the FCC is actually limiting consumer choice, and that's rarely a good thing.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Sypran said:

Isn't that an Oxymoron?
By making your own services faster, you are admitting you can let people have a faster speed. And so you are throttling every other service.
If I only offered 5/1 internet (and I was the only ISP available - which is a common thing), but for my own version of Netflix It had 1000/200. Its quite obvious I am 100% able to offer you a faster speed, but I am purposely throttling everything else.

This isn't like Razer including mice with their laptops. Offering my own version of Netflix for free to my customers would like that. (And I think is perfectly fair)
This is more like... If Samsung said their laptops used SATA II, and USB 2.0 ports, unless you used a Samsung SSD/peripherals. Then they get SATA III and USB 3.1 speeds.

There are technological limits on how fast some services can be provided. Netflix can have the tech to output 1 Gbps speed to Verizon, and Verizon can have the tech to output 10 Gbps with Go90, which is something no one considers.

The bandwidth Netflix provides to Verizon can also serve more customers, further reducing speed per customer compared to Go90.

With first party services, an ISP can invest on improving bandwidth between service and provider, and then pass it on to the customer. Third party, there needs to be investment by both parties.

ISPs can leverage, and should be able to leverage, their own investments.

[DeScruff]

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

There are technological limits on how fast some services can be provided. Netflix can have the tech to output 1 Gbps speed to Verizon, and Verizon can have the tech to output 10 Gbps with Go90, which is something no one considers.

No one is complaining that Jonny's website which is only connected to a 50mb/s connection isn't going at 1Gb/s while other websites like google are able to be 1Gb/s. Thats why "no one considers." it, or more accurately no one talks about it. Thats a completely separate issue, and everyone knows that. That isn't ISP throttling.

 

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The bandwidth Netflix provides to Verizon can also serve more customers, further reducing speed per customer compared to Go90.

With first party services, an ISP can invest on improving bandwidth between service and provider, and then pass it on to the customer. Third party, there needs to be investment by both parties.

What we are talking about is Netflix providing Verizon enough bandwidth for every Verizon customer to have a 200Mb connection at the same time. Every Verizon customer has a 100Mb connection, and all hardware/infrastructure is 100% capable of everyone having 400Mb/s connections at the same time.
However Verizon only outputs Netflix at 50Mb/s, meanwhile outputting Go90 at 1Gb/s.

THATS where we start having issues. It obvious that Verizon would be favoring their own services vs competitors. - And thats the whole jist of the thing.
Net Neutrality is supposed to be All Data is equal, and that one packet isn't favored over another.
By offering faster speeds on your own services but not letting other services get those speeds - even if they are 100% able to - you are favoring your own data.
 

[bobhays]

I feel like there are a few misunderstanding here, I'll try to clear it up when I'm free

[QueenDemetria]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Except you're going way overboard and conflating things.

Except it was just an example of why we shouldn't let ISP's go unrestricted, and I was replying to that persons post about throttling/prioritization, not the actual issue in the OP.

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

AT&T and Verizon aren't limiting your choices or forcing you to buffer on one service but not their own.

Back on the issue at hand, AT&T(and I guess Verizon) are not counting their own streaming services bandwidth against the users data allotment, whereas services like Netflix and Youtube are counted against the allotment. This is bad for consumers, because either data should all be zero-rated or none at all, and this is where my example above applies. ISP's should keep data neutral, otherwise it hinders innovation and competition.

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

And yes, being able to offering integrated services and packages should be legal, and these companies should be allowed to defray their own costs.

Did I say they shouldn't be able to have their own streaming services? No I didn't, so don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem with ISP's having their own streaming services, but the problem starts when they hinder other services to promote their own(in this case, allowing their own service to go zero-rated). Also, if ISP's need to add services to "defray their own costs", then it sounds like they have bigger issues to begin with.

 

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

In this case the FCC is actually limiting consumer choice, and that's rarely a good thing.

How so? Honestly, I want to know how you can think this(what choice are they limiting? because they aren't telling AT&T/VZW that they cant have their own streaming service.). What I see is that ISP's(in this case, AT&T and VZW) are hindering other services to promote their own, which hurts those other services, instead of leaving it an equal playing field as it should be. If AT&T/VZW are allowed to do this, then that gives them the ability to do the same thing to music streaming services, email providers, image sharing, and so on.

[bobhays]

5 hours ago, Sypran said:

POINT 1

Isn't that an Oxymoron?
By making your own services faster, you are admitting you can let people have a faster speed. And so you are throttling every other service.

 

POINT 2
If my company only offered 5/1 internet (and I was the only ISP available - which is a common thing), but for my own version of Netflix It had 1000/200. Its quite obvious I am 100% able to offer you a faster speed, but I am purposely throttling everything else.

 

POINT 3
This isn't like Razer including mice with their laptops. Offering my own version of Netflix for free to my customers would like that. (And I think is perfectly fair)
This is more like... If Samsung said their laptops used SATA II, and USB 2.0 ports, unless you used a Samsung SSD/peripherals. Then they get SATA III and USB 3.1 speeds.

Point 1: That's not how throttling works. Throttling means purposely lowering the speed of something. By increasing the speed of their own streaming it doesn't affect the speed of the other streaming. (If they do thats bad but that doesn't make zero-rating bad, just their implementation)

 

Point 2: Purposely throttling because that's what people are paying for. Using this argument you are just saying everyone should get max speed for the same price as normal speed. If you believe that that's fine but that's not the argument here.

 

Point 3: What you said about Samsung would be totally fine if Samsung developed the standards. They are totally within their power to put their stuff on their own devices. If Samsung made SATA4 they should be allowed to say only samsung laptops will have SATA 4 and it will only work with Samsung SSD's.

[Bensemus]

18 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

As long as they only zero rate their own exclusive services, there is no detriment to anyone at all.

But there is. Data caps can be a big issue so now they are using their position to make their product more appealing by creating issues with the competitors product. The ISPs are the ones who put the cap in place and then made their and only their services exempt from it. It's the same as if they put a blanket 20mbps cap on bandwidth and excluded their services from that cap. They aren't treating all data equally.

[bobhays]

5 hours ago, QueenDemetria said:

Its more that its an anti competitive tactic on a service that should be neutral. Lets say I run an ISP called DemiCorp. DemiCorp also has its own video service called DemiVideo. If you use DemiVideo on a DemiCorp internet connection you will get full HD without buffering, and you can watch all the content you want from DemiVideo without worry.... but if you want to use Netflix or YouTube you are limited to 480p, you are put on a lower priority list so buffering times will be higher, and its capped so you can watch all the video you want as long as you don't go over 5GB. So, why would I use Netflix or YouTube if it has all those restrictions? Are Netflix and YouTube actually bad? No, because they do offer full HD, low buffering times, and no "bandwidth" limits, but some company is making their competitors products worse(like actually worse, not just appear) to make their services more appealing.

 

ISP's are making an issue of "not being able to handle the bandwidth" which is why they throttle and cap, but then when they zero-rate their own services it really shows that the network isn't the issue, and the truth shows because they are really just seeking higher profits by using their monopoly of networks steal business from other companies, and preventing said companies from being able to compete(you cant serve this area, we already are!). Anti competitiveness aside, the reason why the FCC can make an issue out of this is because most of the networks are government funded(subsidized, whatever), so when ISP's(even carriers) misuse the government funded networks for their own advantage, the government can step in and say "Hey, you're being a dick, bro", and stop the ISP's from using loopholes to exploit both competing companies and consumers.

If you are only paying for a 5/1 service then yes that is totally fine. Giving people free streaming from the ISP service doesn't change their experience of youtube and netflix. If they decide that they want the higher quality content without paying for a higher tier service then that's their choice. ISP isn't forcing them to use their service.

 

That being said you do make a great point. If they can offer their services why can't they just increase the data cap? I wish they would do that but of course greedy companies won't.  I'm not saying that this is an ideal solution (it's not even great) but it's not negative.

[bobhays]

24 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

But there is. Data caps can be a big issue so now they are using their position to make their product more appealing by creating issues with the competitors product. The ISPs are the ones who put the cap in place and then made their and only their services exempt from it. It's the same as if they put a blanket 20mbps cap on bandwidth and excluded their services from that cap. They aren't treating all data equally.

You said that they don't treat data equally (that's kind of this whole topic), but the real question is does that even matter? and why? The only negative I can see is that they implement data caps when this proves they can handle more, something we've always known. Basically they can use this as a side benefit and avoid increasing the caps. It's not perfect but it's not bad either.

[DeScruff]

3 minutes ago, bobhays said:

Point 1: That's not how throttling works. Throttling means purposely lowering the speed of something. By increasing the speed of their own streaming it doesn't affect the speed of the other streaming. (If they do thats bad but that doesn't make zero-rating bad, just their implementation)

Point 2: Purposely throttling because that's what people are paying for. Using this argument you are just saying everyone should get max speed for the same price as normal speed. If you believe that that's fine but that's not the argument here.

Point 3: What you said about Samsung would be totally fine if Samsung developed the standards. They are totally within their power to put their stuff on their own devices. If Samsung made SATA4 they should be allowed to say only samsung laptops will have SATA 4 and it will only work with Samsung SSD's.

Point 1: Theoretically yes it is... If lower tier packages are not keeping up with the infrastructure and data demand. - Which was/is happening.
Even then your point was " Allowing your own services to go faster or for free doesn't hinder any other services. " - which is wrong.
If I am an ISP, and I limit you to 5GB a month - Oh but HERE use MY service, it doesn't go against your Data. - Your telling me that that doesn't hinder other services?
You telling me that never updating from 5/1 speeds, unless it's my own products then I offer 1Gbps is not harming other services?

Couldn't the argument also be made that by helping your own service with 'unfair' infrastructure advantages that other services don't have access to, is giving a competitive edge to one side, and so is harming the competition?
- Thats I think why most people are against this. They view acess to the internet as a public utility, not some sorta thing owned by a single company,
It gives the ISP a huge competitive advantage that no one else can possibly have unless they become an ISP themselves. - Of course if they try then the ISP will bring them to court.

Point 2: I am not arguing that, however it is proving that they do have the infrastructure to have everyone slightly faster speed - or at least faster minimums, which for most ISPs is pitifully small, but chose not to do that, making their own services faster is a higher priority apparently.

Point 3: The point is Samsung doesn't develop the standards in that example and that you are being locked behind a wall for... no reason other then greed.
 

[QueenDemetria]

6 minutes ago, bobhays said:

If you are only paying for a 5/1 service then yes that is totally fine.

I don't get how connection speed has anything to do with my example or the OP.

8 minutes ago, bobhays said:

Giving people free streaming from the ISP service doesn't change their experience of youtube and netflix.

ISP's aren't giving away their streaming service for free though, they are charging you for it(and in the case of AT&T, if you want unlimited data on your phone you have to subscribe to uverse tv or DirecTV). What is happening is that services like Netflix and YouTube are capped, while AT&T's and Verizons service isn't capped. So yes, they are hindering competing services.

12 minutes ago, bobhays said:

If they can offer their services why can't they just increase the data cap?

They could, but they wouldn't make any additional money. You said it, they're greedy. The problem is that carriers tier themselves with data allotments instead of speeds. Price is what holds most people back from the higher tiers, but the higher tiers are the carriers ideal profit targets. This is why I like the direction that T-Mobile and Sprint are going, where "everything is unlimited" and if you want better speeds you just pay a little extra. Caps(on internet) are not justifiable in my opinion, because their artificial and lead to problems with ISP's cheating the system for self gain.

[bobhays]

20 minutes ago, Sypran said:

Point 1: Theoretically yes it is... If lower tier packages are not keeping up with the infrastructure and data demand. - Which was/is happening.
Even then your point was " Allowing your own services to go faster or for free doesn't hinder any other services. " - which is wrong.
If I am an ISP, and I limit you to 5GB a month - Oh but HERE use MY service, it doesn't go against your Data. - Your telling me that that doesn't hinder other services?
You telling me that never updating from 5/1 speeds, unless it's my own products then I offer 1Gbps is not harming other services?

Couldn't the argument also be made that by helping your own service with 'unfair' infrastructure advantages that other services don't have access to, is giving a competitive edge to one side, and so is harming the competition?
- Thats I think why most people are against this. They view acess to the internet as a public utility, not some sorta thing owned by a single company,
It gives the ISP a huge competitive advantage that no one else can possibly have unless they become an ISP themselves. - Of course if they try then the ISP will bring them to court.

Point 2: I am not arguing that, however it is proving that they do have the infrastructure to have everyone slightly faster speed - or at least faster minimums, which for most ISPs is pitifully small, but chose not to do that, making their own services faster is a higher priority apparently.

Point 3: The point is Samsung doesn't develop the standards in that example and that you are being locked behind a wall for... no reason other then greed.
 

Point 3: the reason I said Samsung "develops" it is because thats a better analogy. The ISP's created their own streaming service so they can use it how they like. It's not stopping you from using any of the other services.

 

Point 2: We all know that they can make internet faster. The reason they don't is so they can charge you more for the higher tier services. The zero-rating shows they can handle more data which is one of the points i've already conceded.