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

[Misanthrope]

Good call, it would be a shame if the FCC would find itself under new administration and change it's stance though....

Spoiler

 

[bobhays]

1 minute ago, QueenDemetria said:

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

I was talking about how other services would be inferior to the ISP's. Getting 480p Youtube vs 1080p ISP service is not a problem if you are paying for a service that can only handle 480p. Basically that resolution comparison was null.

1 minute ago, QueenDemetria said:

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.

Sorry I meant zero-rating, not free. Also I now understand what you guys meant by "hindering" but for some reason it clicked the way you phrased it. Not directly hindering but effectively. The problem isn't the streaming quality or speed, it's just the data cap. The dumb part is that I knew that I disagreed before but I couldn't remember why so then I just thought, hey if it doesn't make anything worse, then it's better right?

1 minute ago, QueenDemetria said:

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.

This one was a rhetorical question.

[Bensemus]

16 hours ago, bobhays said:

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.

The caps serve no purpose except to get people to buy more expensive packages. With the zero rating the customer can instead use on of the ISPs services to stay under their limit which still makes the ISP more money. The ISP is creating headaches for their customers who have the audacity to use other companies services. They are abusing they position. If they offered their services at a reduced cost when using certain plans that's different. Instead they are potentially penalizing people who use other services.

 

It matters that they aren't treating all data equally as that's what net neutrality is about. 

[Bensemus]

13 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Ok, they could very well take away their own exclusive services which are nonessential to begin with. Does that make things any better? Is your issue with the cap itself or the free non obligatory stuff they provide? 

I never said anything about them offering competing services. If they set data caps then everything's should be subject to the cap. Zero rating is just like creating a fast lane.

[bobhays]

19 minutes ago, Bensemus said:

The caps serve no purpose except to get people to buy more expensive packages. With the zero rating the customer can instead use on of the ISPs services to stay under their limit which still makes the ISP more money. The ISP is creating headaches for their customers who have the audacity to use other companies services. They are abusing they position. If they offered their services at a reduced cost when using certain plans that's different. Instead they are potentially penalizing people who use other services.

 

It matters that they aren't treating all data equally as that's what net neutrality is about. 

I'd agree except for the part where even if they didn't zero-rate their services the other services would have the same cap. The argument to be made here is that by zero-rating their plans they are basically trying to avoid raising their caps which is what they should do instead. (I agree that it's not good)

[Puddleuk]

Don't see any issues personally. If anything this is beneficial to everyone that uses the services.

 

For example lets say you have a 10GB month plan. Ordinarily all the data that you use on an ISP would count towards that cap. All these companies are doing is simply making their own services not use any data in that cap, which is reasonable since you are paying for the service anyway. It doesn't take away anything from the competition it actually gives the customer MORE data that they can use to download, watch videos, stream Netflix etc. 

[Trik'Stari]

21 minutes ago, Puddleuk said:

Don't see any issues personally. If anything this is beneficial to everyone that uses the services.

 

For example lets say you have a 10GB month plan. Ordinarily all the data that you use on an ISP would count towards that cap. All these companies are doing is simply making their own services not use any data in that cap, which is reasonable since you are paying for the service anyway. It doesn't take away anything from the competition it actually gives the customer MORE data that they can use to download, watch videos, stream Netflix etc. 

It's anti competitive. They zero rate their own services, but charge another service money (or count it against your data rate) for simply not being theirs.

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's anti competitive. They zero rate their own services, but charge another service money (or count it against your data rate) for simply not being theirs.

They zero-rate their services b/c they don't need to pay for those services. YouTube, on the other hand, has to be paid for it's number of hits per quota as does Google or any other site.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

They zero-rate their services b/c they don't need to pay for those services. YouTube, on the other hand, has to be paid for it's number of hits per quota as does Google or any other site.

They zero rate their own services so that you are more likely to use them, instead of a competing service, and then they can make advertising money off of it (or directly off of you if it's a subscriber based service).

 

Data caps need to go away entirely.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

They zero rate their own services so that you are more likely to use them, instead of a competing service, and then they can make advertising money off of it (or directly off of you if it's a subscriber based service).

If you're trying to watch a movie, it doesn't matter where the stream is coming from as the price will be the same, so why not go with the one that doesn't count towards your data?

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Data caps need to go away entirely.

Agreed.

[Bensemus]

1 hour ago, bobhays said:

I'd agree except for the part where even if they didn't zero-rate their services the other services would have the same cap. The argument to be made here is that by zero-rating their plans they are basically trying to avoid raising their caps which is what they should do instead. (I agree that it's not good)

Zero rating their services isn't a kindness. They implemented the data caps to milk more money from customers and now they are zero rating their own services to milk evem more money. If data caps are too low then up them. Zero rating their services doesn't solve the issue of data caps. The argument they make is bull as like I keep stating they created the problem willingly. We are saying similar things except you seem to be trying to put it in a positive light which makes no sense. You even said a few posts ago that you agree its wrong, you just had forgotten why you thought that.

[QueenDemetria]

5 hours ago, Puddleuk said:

Don't see any issues personally. If anything this is beneficial to everyone that uses the services.

 

For example lets say you have a 10GB month plan. Ordinarily all the data that you use on an ISP would count towards that cap. All these companies are doing is simply making their own services not use any data in that cap, which is reasonable since you are paying for the service anyway. It doesn't take away anything from the competition it actually gives the customer MORE data that they can use to download, watch videos, stream Netflix etc. 

Actually that's not what's happening. AT&T(and VZW) are only zero-rating their own services, not services like Netflix and YouTube, so they are capping their competitors.

[bobhays]

9 hours ago, Bensemus said:

Zero rating their services isn't a kindness. They implemented the data caps to milk more money from customers and now they are zero rating their own services to milk evem more money. If data caps are too low then up them. Zero rating their services doesn't solve the issue of data caps. The argument they make is bull as like I keep stating they created the problem willingly. We are saying similar things except you seem to be trying to put it in a positive light which makes no sense. You even said a few posts ago that you agree its wrong, you just had forgotten why you thought that.

Yea and I mentioned again it was not good. I'm just saying that regardless of if there was a zero-rate or not, they'd still have low data caps. They shouldn't but they will and as long as that is true, this is beneficial to some, but bad in the long run.

[Guest Kloaked]

On 12/2/2016 at 5:08 PM, ARikozuM said:

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).

Good.