Free Data Programs From T-Mobile, AT&T and Comcast Scrutinized by FCC

[H2SO4]

Anybody know what program is playing on the phone?

EDIT: Never mind, sorry. Just seen. Game Of Thrones.

 

[lowendlinux]

This is why net neutrality is stupid. It leads to micromanagement by regulators.

If this is micromanagement then yup I want more government micromanagement.

 

[MH01]

Interesting this article falls under politics, religion and social issues. Just raising it as one requires a 100 posts to contribute . Fully understand why some articles fall under this category, though this does not seem sensitive in nature.

 

[FieldingMellish]

It's political.

 

[diamond.g]

Competition is what lowers prices in America, which is a plus for the American consumer. Government is like, "well, we can't have any of that going on here, can we? Let's launch an investigation."

What would be great is if the local government would stop allowing municipal monopolies so folks can get more than or 2 internet providers in their area. Verizon is no longer rolling out FiOS and everyone poops themselves when towns look to roll their own fiber.

Of course one could say moving is an option...

 

[0007776]

Competition is what lowers prices in America, which is a plus for the American consumer. Government is like, "well, we can't have any of that going on here, can we? Let's launch an investigation."

A major part of the governments job is to protect us from monopolies, and that is what they are doing here. You also seem to forget that it was government meddling that kept T-mobile around to begin with. A couple years back T-Mobile was going to be sold to AT&T, but the government blocked the merger, and as a result T-mobile has been around to stir up the market.

 

[Waxhead138]

I think the important question that should be asked is, will this harm competitive conditions in an unfair way?

Taking T-Mobiles Binge-On program for example, if any video streaming startup can easily qualify for the zero-rating by using a certain freely available codec with certain settings, and anyone can easily implement this, it seems fine to me. If qualifying for the zero-rating requires jumping through timely and/or expensive hoops, then it seems anti-competitive and unfair to me.

The biggest issue I see with this article, and I don't think the FCC is looking at this, but as consumers we should take note:

This just exposes the telecoms further as liars. I don't think anyone needs to be told that, but this practice contradicts many statements over the years about bandwidth limitation. Out of one end of their mouths, we're told data plans were brought about to help curb excessive usage on the networks, to alleviate bandwidth constraints for everyone's greater good.

That sale pitch justification becomes complete and total BS and loses all credibility when they allow unlimited streaming for certain applications at their choosing. Straight up lies.

Again, I don't think anyone is naïve enough to believe the garbage sold to us by telecoms, but they are getting bolder and bolder and more insulting when they don't think people can connect dots.

 

[Tech198]

I prefer the term :"In a statement, a T-Mobile spokesperson said the company is "looking forward" to talking with the FCC, and believes Binge drinking is "absolutely in line with net-neutrality rules."

kind of understandable, particularly just *after* u agree to net-neutrality rules.

I mean, how else would you come up with this..

 

[diamond.g]

The biggest issue I see with this article, and I don't think the FCC is looking at this, but as consumers we should take note:

This just exposes the telecoms further as liars. I don't think anyone needs to be told that, but this practice contradicts many statements over the years about bandwidth limitation. Out of one end of their mouths, we're told data plans were brought about to help curb excessive usage on the networks, to alleviate bandwidth constraints for everyone's greater good.

That sale pitch justification becomes complete and total BS and loses all credibility when they allow unlimited streaming for certain applications at their choosing. Straight up lies.

Again, I don't think anyone is naïve enough to believe the garbage sold to us by telecoms, but they are getting bolder and bolder and more insulting when they don't think people can connect dots.

It gets better: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/dont-say-data-cap-highlights-from-a-comcast-customer-service-script/
They are not even taking the network congestion argument anymore, it is a straight cash grab. (at least for Comcast)

 

[Waxhead138]

It gets better: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/dont-say-data-cap-highlights-from-a-comcast-customer-service-script/
They are not even taking the network congestion argument anymore, it is a straight cash grab. (at least for Comcast)

Hahahaha thanks that was hilarious. I wasn't even thinking about Comcast when I originally posted, but it's handy to know if they impose the cap policy in my area (I have Comcast, but no limits yet) what to say to get them jumping through hoops.

What I took away from that article is they are flat out scared if you even broach the topic of the politics of Net Neutrality over the phone. That's a handy piece of info to have.

 

[vpndev]

This is why net neutrality is stupid. It leads to micromanagement by regulators.

I don't think I'd call it "micromanagement" but I'll accept that label for the moment.

I would much rather have micromanagement by regulators than have it done by Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and their friends. Much rather. Much.

 

[2457282]

My, admittedly limited, understanding of net neutrality is that you cannot give preferential treatment to any packet on the network for any reason. Seems simple enough to me. But as always nothing is so simple. While on the network everything must be equal, how does it get on the network? There was a big fight where Netflix and even Apple had to pay big money to get wide access to pump content onto the network. So the little guys have to go through slower access ramps where the big boys pay money to get big fast ramps. Is that net neutral -- the issue has not been addressed by the FCC to my knowledge. On the other end of the network is me and you as the consumer. If the content cannot be prioritized within the network, can it be prioritized, throttled or capped in the delivery?

In the case of T-mob, the data or content is not being prioritized, throttled or capped. They are simply saying that some data is free based on compression by the content provider. Can the network deliver some packets for free and charge for others if they are not prioritized within the network?

In my mind there are indeed a lot of questions to resolve. I hope that in the end they land on a set of answers that are consumer friendly.

 

[vpndev]

I hate the government and wish I still lived in the 1400s.

There was government back then. Just the local Lord. His was the last word on everything. He owned the land, you worked it and gave him some of your crops as rent. You also owed him labor and, from time to time, service in his army.

The likelihood is that you'd hate his government more than the one you have now. Which is, after all, why we have this one now after disposing of the Lords.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

It gets better: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/dont-say-data-cap-highlights-from-a-comcast-customer-service-script/
They are not even taking the network congestion argument anymore, it is a straight cash grab. (at least for Comcast)

Just as Ed Whitacre said they would -- well, in that case, it was AT&T, but, the monopolist mentality is exactly the same:

“Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it,” he told the magazine. “So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? … For a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts.”

--Former AT&T chair Ed Whitacre in 2007.

 

[Renzatic]

Former AT&T chair Ed Whitacre in 2007.

Or Southern Dad and others like him, circa the last time this topic came up in PRSI.

What he's failing to understand is that he's already getting a return on his investment through his subscribers. They pay AT&T to gain access to the likes of Google, Yahoo, or Vonage. These companies, in turn, build up their infrastructure to allow their services to pass across his section of the network without consuming a vast amount of his bandwidth.

This is how the internet has worked since day 1. You buy the bandwidth, and you can use it for whatever. If you use too much, you build up your own network, and peer it to everyone else's. There are no catches, no two-way toll roads. It's the reason why the whole world wide web thing has become the huge success that it is.

 

[ravenvii]

So what? Most BOGO sales are co-marketing efforts. What makes wireless Internet so special that the government imposes price controls?

Uh... wow. If you don't see the difference between BOGO offers and access to the internet (wired or otherwise), I... I don't know what to say.

Nice day, sir.

 

[macintologist]

I think the important question that should be asked is, will this harm competitive conditions in an unfair way?

Taking T-Mobiles Binge-On program for example, if any video streaming startup can easily qualify for the zero-rating by using a certain freely available codec with certain settings, and anyone can easily implement this, it seems fine to me. If qualifying for the zero-rating requires jumping through timely and/or expensive hoops, then it seems anti-competitive and unfair to me.

I completely agree. The way I see it is, what sort of consideration is required on the part of participating video and audio producers? Does having your data be free to the customers require some sort of payment or expensive bureaucratic nonsense? Or is it open to pretty much anyone as long as they follow some easy steps.

 

[Will do good]

FCC better worries about band 12 in Chicago then this non-sense. As it stands now, T-mobile's in the building coverage in Chicago and suburbs is horrendous.

What's this Band 12 in Chicago? Thanks.

 

[Renzatic]

Of course, that is a blatant violation of the net neutrality and should not be allowed. I actually don't want any provider treating bits differently, regardless whether it is good or bad (which is almost always a matter of perspective anyway).

However, I personally do not like these package deals either, at all. The problem with bundling is that you are entangling multiple markets and make it harder for competitors in any of these markets as well as for consumers to put sufficient constraints upon strong companies. It works for each side: Consumers might be swayed by this Spotify offer, even though the Internet service itself may not be as good as a competitor's. That's bringing more complexity to consumers and makes it easier for companies to get away with uncompetitive services. Competitors, especially new entrants, might find it harder to get a foothold in the market, because a strong company like T-Mobile has money to spend to sugarcoat the deal, even if the entrant might have a better Internet service. There is a danger that large companies like T-Mobile can always rig the game in their favour. This is why European competition laws are typically much stricter about this sort of behaviour.

I don't disagree with you entirely, but I don't think we should regulate providers to that extent. Bundled deals are agreements between companies, and aren't necessarily unfair in normal practice. Since no one will set up a deal that'll end up costing them money to provide a bonus, they're automatically limited by market necessities. Spotify won't pay T-Mobile to provide their service free of charge, since they won't gain anything out of it besides some mindshare. Same with T-Mobile paying Spotify to give their customers perpetual access to their service. But giving them 3 months free serves as a boon for both companies. Spotify gets advertising, T-Mobile gets an incentive to draw people in away from the competition, and smaller streaming services won't be harmed in the process. Now there are situations where bundled deals can be anticompetitive, but as a normal practice, I don't have much problem with them.

And at the end of the day, bad service is bad service. All the bundled deals in the world won't help anyone if Spotify can't provide the content, or T-Mobile is so perpetually congested they can't stream the songs. Since there are multiple competing entities involved, everyone still has to work to earn your dollars.

 

[Adokimus]

MY GOD! How dare companies offer promotions to lure customers!

Politicians should stay away from EVERYTHING.

You're missing the point completely. Promotions shouldn't allow one GB to be cheaper than a different GB. Internet service providers should only be providing data amounts at a set cost, they shouldn't be in the business of providing some content cheaper than others. This is how the internet has always existed and grown and helped small businesses have a chance.

 

[Adokimus]

I think it's funny that the usual bunch of anti regulation laissez-faire people are arguing against restrictions that allow the one truest form of laissez-faire capitalism the world has seen to be gamed by those who merely provide the gateway to it.

ISPs should only be allowed to do one thing for me: charge me access to the internet at large. I don't want them picking and choosing what gets to me, what doesn't, and what I have to pay more for based upon nothing but their own whims.

It's not funny, it's sad and ironic. Rather than think through an issue logically, they're buying the speaking points of politicians wholesale. Confirmation bias at its worst.

 

[Adokimus]

That sums it up quite well, actually.

No, it actually misses the entire point.

 

[diamond.g]

You're missing the point completely. Promotions shouldn't allow one GB to be cheaper than a different GB. Internet service providers should only be providing data amounts at a set cost, they shouldn't be in the business of providing some content cheaper than others. This is how the internet has always existed and grown and helped small businesses have a chance.

And what is worse is they don't even provide that set cost to their end users either. We get these 'buckets' that they come up with usually designed to extract more money from us.

With the internet supposedly being seen as a utility it is a matter of time before the government tries to set per/GiB rates like they do to the power companies.

 

[winston1236]

Good, any company with monopoly service in many areas should be tightly regulated.

 

[CrAkD]

Everything should be unlimited. 1 bill unlimited data, texting, minutes. It's 2015. If you have people using it to download 24/7 abusing it then shut them down.