No. Do they control what you can say over your phone line? All we need is for data to be a utility protected by the same privacy laws as phone lines. So simple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T and Verizon Facing FCC Scrutiny After Exempting Their Own Apps From Data Caps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why can't AT&T and Verizon just copy T Mobile's Binge On. Much better as no special app required. Since I moved our son to Verizon from T-Mobile his data usage has more than doubled doing nothing different than he did at T-Mobile. If that continues, will be moving him back to T-Mobile.
Back room lobbying by the carriers. Future statement:
"Sorry customers, we have to charge you. We didn't want too. They made us"
T-mobile differes because they do not charge a fee to any company that wants their music / video to not count against a users data.
I think what people are missing here is that eventually all streaming companies will have to pay a fee to ATT / Verizon to compete with companies that already do, and eventually those costs will be passed right back on to the customer.
Dont believe all of the negative nancies. The reason the FCC doesn't want carriers to not charge you data usage is you can get by with a smaller lower priced plan reducing their cut in taxes. Tom Morello said it best almost 20 years ago. The only bad F-word is the FCC.
The difference is that any provider is welcome to use Binge On and Music Freedom without charge from T-Mobile. I even got a small music streaming provider added to Music Freedom just by asking. They are offering it equally to all.
I do not see the "evil" of this business model. I just don't understand how this hurts consumers or competition. I've read many comments in favor of FCC but I'm not convinced. As far as I know, ATT is not charging extra, or banning anything, they are giving the consumer benefits by not charging him/her for a service when using other services from ATT. If this is causing folks from leaving other telecoms why shouldn't those other companies do the same? If I am selling you a banana for $1, an apple for $1, and an orange for a $1, all of those products comes with a "service fee", however, if you already bought a banana and an apple from me and you want to buy an orange, i will not charge you an extra "service" fee. How the hell is this "unfair" for the consumer who likes oranges or other orange stores and why does the GOV care?
AT&T purchased the Time Warner media brand (HBO, TNT, TBS, etc), NOT their telecom service (Time Warner Cable). Spectrum already purchased the Cable portion earlier this year. The worrying thing about the AT&T/TW merger (pending Anti-trust) is that the same company could be making, distributing, and selling the sausage, all while denying access by independent corporations who want to distribute their own content on the AT&T network.So many mergers... so many rules... AT&T and Time Warner hooking up seems like the nail in the coffin towards an overpriced spiral of a multimedia and internet access world
they are all monopolies that spend millions to lobby against scrutiny. really comes as no surprise.
Imagine if your electric utility sold appliances. They then tell you that when you use the inferior appliances that they sell, the electric you use will be charged at a lower rate. If you use appliances purchased elsewhere, you will pay more, even if your own appliances are better and/or safer.
Or the phone company...when you call people on the list of numbers the phone company choses for you, your calls are cheaper. If you call anyone else, regardless of their location, you have to pay more.
I really don't have any other good examples. Look up antitrust because that's what this is.
Exactly. Now that the precedent has been set that the FCC has a say in how the internet is run, I would expect Pence to start pushing them to be more "safe for the children!!" and regulate content. If it IS the "people's internet" like we call the airwaves the "people's airwaves" then regulation of content is just a matter of time and who's in charge.
Thankfully, the incoming administration is pro-consumer and hopefully the FCC will have more pro-consumer/logical leadership instead of anti-consumer/anti-corporate polarization which we have seen in the past 8 years.
Do you understand how selling you high speed service, then throttling the speed of sites who don't pay them would be evil?
Can you see that charging you a base speed, then giving you sponsored content at a higher speed for "free", is exactly the same thing? But the wording is deceptive.
Can you see how selling you data and then charging you more, for sites who do not pay them, is evil? And just another form of throttling based on total bytes instead of bytes/second?
Can you see how charging you by the GB and then giving you sponsored content for "free" is the same thing? But the wording is tricky.
Last edited:
This only works if the services you receive from the carrier are free. In the case of Directv Now, it's a pay service and free streaming could just be a bundle perk. Consider another analogy...
AT&T is a 10000 acre farm. You, a customer, ten acres of that farm and rent your Directv Now farm equipment through AT&T who lets you store that equipment on an additional plot of land with a barn, etc. Netflix rents equipment too, but if you use that, you have to store it on your leased acreage.
The farm is the network which AT&T has invested billions of dollars in to, if not more. The farm doesn't belong to you, you simply lease bandwidth on that network and you're free to use that how you'd like. If you get their additional service, AT&T will lease you additional bandwidth on one of their assets, but if you use someone else, no problem, but they get no revenue from Netflix, so you get no additional bandwidth.
If the Directv Now was free and they gave free streaming, that would definitely be questionable.
AT&T isn't charging different rates for data from different services, but services like Apple Music or Youtube could essentially pay for their customers' data. I don't see any issue with carriers offering more services, especially if they give the competition the same options. If they were throttling services and making other services inferior to their own, that to me would be a huge issue.
Doubtful...the next guy is a businessman himself. Unless he likes to shoot himself in the foot...
I'm on Verizon. Unlimited data. So this doesn't affect me. Now if the FCC changes rules and I lose my unlimited data. I don't like government sticking their nose in my business. Hope Trump crushes some of these stupid regulations.
For the record I proudly voted for Trump. Call me what you want. It won't change my mind.
For the record I proudly voted for Trump. Call me what you want. It won't change my mind.
The streaming provider still has to partner up with T-Mobile, however. What if you happen to stream media from a foreign company or private website? You’re out of luck. What if you don’t stream music or video at all, but rather download games from Steam? You pay for every single bit. T-Mobile decides what kind of content and which content from which servers receive preferential treatment and it gives them control over shaping how the usage of the network will develop. This is the essence of what net neutrality should prevent, they should not have that kind of power to satisfy their own self-interest.
Consider also this: why does T-Mobile do this? What is their motive? They are not charging you, but it still costs them bandwidth. The truth is, they have figured out that it is much cheaper for them when they can coax consumers into lower-bandwidth streaming, because then they do not have to invest as much and as quickly into the network infrastructure. That hinders the development of the network if companies are unwilling to invest.
Internet service providers are openly opposed to net neutrality, it is a threat to them. Of course, they will do everything to get the consumer on their side. They manipulate the consumer by offering free services, a very powerful sweetener. People favour instant gratification over long-term thinking and it is a very tough job to take free stuff away from people, especially when a government entity does it.
This is common practice in Australia.
For example any traffic from iTunes (movie rentals etc) don't count to the quota with certain ISPs.
Netflix has arrangements with ISPs here as well.
Surprised they have taken issue with it.
However I'm sure if we all (Aussies) campaigned the government to rule out this practice, we would just end up paying more...
For example any traffic from iTunes (movie rentals etc) don't count to the quota with certain ISPs.
Netflix has arrangements with ISPs here as well.
Surprised they have taken issue with it.
However I'm sure if we all (Aussies) campaigned the government to rule out this practice, we would just end up paying more...
There's nothing free in bundles... they may shape it to seem that way, but you really pay for it all at a discounted price the company is willing to offer in exchange for guaranteed sale.
[doublepost=1480724659][/doublepost]Major issues with "free data" from certain apps that pay for the privilege. Inhibits competition which harms everybody. Here's a hypothetical that isn't out of the realm of possibility:
Verizon starts its own music streaming service. To gain customers, it exempts its own streaming from data usage. Spotify goes out of business. Apple Music suffers and shuts down. Verizon easily could offer an inferior product, but due to the free cost-of-use, it's worth it to the consumers to "suffer" with an inferior product that has no reason to improve (monopoly) because it's free to them.
[doublepost=1480724785][/doublepost]
Think of this like this:
Both AT&T and Verizon offer apps and streaming services that don't count against the data cap they impose on customers, a practice that the United States Federal Communications Commission does not approve of.
The FCC this week sent letters (via The Verge) to both Verizon and AT&T, claiming that the data cap exemptions, called "zero rating," raise net neutrality concerns and could impact consumers and competition.
AT&T and Verizon each offer programs that allow content providers to pay a fee to be exempted from customer data caps, programs that they themselves take advantage of with their own apps and services.
DirecTV Now, AT&T's recently introduced streaming television service, does not use data when streamed on the AT&T network, for example. DirecTV Now pays for the data, but as an AT&T subsidiary, AT&T is just paying itself. Verizon, meanwhile, exempts its own Go90 streaming service from using data on the Verizon network and does not pay fees to do so.
The FCC first sent a warning to AT&T in early November, but was not pleased with the response it received from the company. In this week's letter, the FCC says that it has come to the "preliminary" conclusion that the Sponsored Data program inhibits competition, harms consumers, and violates Open Internet rules. It asks AT&T to answer a series of questions about its Sponsored Data practices.A similar letter sent to Verizon expresses concern over the "FreeBee Data 360" program and says it has the potential to "hinder competition and harm consumers" because Verizon does not need to pay to participate in the Sponsored Data program when it exempts its own app, but competing content providers do.AT&T and Verizon have responded to the letters sent by the FCC in statements given to the media. AT&T says the government should not take away a service that's saving customers money, while Verizon says its practices are good for consumers, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the rules.
The two carriers have been given a December 15 deadline to respond to the FCC's concerns.
Article Link: AT&T and Verizon Facing FCC Scrutiny After Exempting Their Own Apps From Data Caps
Rather than reduce the cost of sponsored apps (free data usage), what if these companies caused non-sponsored apps to require double the data usage? It's the exact same scenario - discounted data cost relative to other apps. That's why this is an issue.
If every app required "no" data, the FCC would have no problem with this.
Last edited: