Whatever. The internet and the wireless internet all need to be utilities, or dumb pipes. That is what the FCC was trying to accomplish with net neutrality. Most non-breitbarters know this.
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
Whatever. The internet and the wireless internet all need to be utilities, or dumb pipes. That is what the FCC was trying to accomplish with net neutrality. Most non-breitbarters know this.
Wha..? Except the precedent being set is that carriers may NOT influence content. A data carrier giving preferential treatment to sponsored data is as clear an anti-trust issue as we are ever likely to see.
The only people DirectvNow hurts are the former cartel monopolies known as the cable companies. And their paid watchdogs in the government are now trying to use the "law" to put an end to it. None of that surprises me.
But what does surprise me are all the replies here defending this corruption. The FCC's not helping you, folks, wake up.
But what does surprise me are all the replies here defending this corruption. The FCC's not helping you, folks, wake up.
I have noticed net neutrality has become a huge topic. It has sparked up more and more conversations ever since T-Mobile introduced, "Binge On"
My thing is, with T-Mobile, the data is unlimited and even the sites and streaming services that don't integrate "Binge On" are not effected because T-Mobile customers can still watch the shows and movies without having to worry about data. (Yes, I do know that in some areas, T-Mobile "deprioritizes" users after 26Gs) but it's still fantastic and I personally have not noticed anything. (50-60Gs a month for me).
This does effect net neutrality only because Data plans are so expensive with Verizon and AT&T. I used to have noth carriers at different points and each one was terrible when it came to data plans. Choosing which specific apps do and don't use data on the specific network, does effect net neutrality in my opinion.
My thing is, with T-Mobile, the data is unlimited and even the sites and streaming services that don't integrate "Binge On" are not effected because T-Mobile customers can still watch the shows and movies without having to worry about data. (Yes, I do know that in some areas, T-Mobile "deprioritizes" users after 26Gs) but it's still fantastic and I personally have not noticed anything. (50-60Gs a month for me).
This does effect net neutrality only because Data plans are so expensive with Verizon and AT&T. I used to have noth carriers at different points and each one was terrible when it came to data plans. Choosing which specific apps do and don't use data on the specific network, does effect net neutrality in my opinion.
Small correction, Level 3 bought Time Warner Telecom. TWT, TWC and TW are all separate.
You know he won't be President* for another 7 weeks, right? When he does take office, all reports point to net neutrality being demolished in a hurry.
(*To be pedantic, he's not even President-elect until the Electoral College votes.)
I don't wish to turn this into a political discussion,
but I want to know how the incoming Donald Trump
administration will deal with this issue. Is there
any evidence that they will do things differently
and affect how much I pay to Verizon and/or AT&T?
but I want to know how the incoming Donald Trump
administration will deal with this issue. Is there
any evidence that they will do things differently
and affect how much I pay to Verizon and/or AT&T?
What gets me with all of this is that people want these exemptions gone because of net neutrality but thats not the real cause of the issue here. Data Caps and throttling the internet should be banned by the FCC period. It would eliminate the threat to net neutrality entirely.
It's anti-consumer because it's anti-competitive. It further allows ISPs to be gatekeepers that can, and will, push their vertically integrated content and services to their customers while erecting barriers to prevent other companies from accessing their customers without paying a toll.
Can bigger companies like Netflix or Amazon afford to pay this 'access fee'? Probably. But what about the next Netflix? Or the next Amazon? The innovative companies of tomorrow will be boxed out by policies created today, and in 10-15yrs the Internet will be carved up and controlled the same way Old Media is.
The biggest lie that ISPs propagate is that bandwidth is limited and expensive. It is neither. And it's getting cheaper and more plentiful by the day. ISPs and data are like De Beers and diamonds (make something artificially scarce in order to attach insane prices to a product/service that should be relatively cheap).
Trump's perspective appointees want to basically disband the FCC and let the giant media companies do whatever they want with the Interent.
Can bigger companies like Netflix or Amazon afford to pay this 'access fee'? Probably. But what about the next Netflix? Or the next Amazon? The innovative companies of tomorrow will be boxed out by policies created today, and in 10-15yrs the Internet will be carved up and controlled the same way Old Media is.
The biggest lie that ISPs propagate is that bandwidth is limited and expensive. It is neither. And it's getting cheaper and more plentiful by the day. ISPs and data are like De Beers and diamonds (make something artificially scarce in order to attach insane prices to a product/service that should be relatively cheap).
Trump's perspective appointees want to basically disband the FCC and let the giant media companies do whatever they want with the Interent.
Correct... its often called "un-metered data" as well .... Those U.S people ... FCC regulations what applies to one country ok, but not the other ? That's really what it comes down as..
It does effect you whether you like it or not. This is the first step. Second is to increase pricing or reduce amount of data provided. This then influences your decisions on what services to use. You're not thinking long term enough, and as usual short sightedness is the folly of our country.
In theory, this is a simple issue. The FCC is doing the right thing because they are attempting to keep a level playing field where every good service and especially the Next Great Thing have a chance at commercial success. That's good for consumers. They rightly call out AT&T and Verizon for trying to stifle competition by artificially charging them for access that they don't charge for their own service. It's easy to see how that can lead to inferior choices for us.
That said, business, like life, isn't quite that simple. The pipeline builders need a reason to build bigger pipes otherwise they won't and this is why the debate over net neutrality has been going on for five or ten years. If anyone thinks they have the perfect solution, please share. I doubt one is out there, though, otherwise many before us would have found it.
That said, business, like life, isn't quite that simple. The pipeline builders need a reason to build bigger pipes otherwise they won't and this is why the debate over net neutrality has been going on for five or ten years. If anyone thinks they have the perfect solution, please share. I doubt one is out there, though, otherwise many before us would have found it.
Bundling is NOT BAD for consumers. It happens every day. When you buy a car, it is a bundling of parts. Could you afford a car if you had to buy each component separately? The manufacturer bundles those parts and sells it cheaper. Before you go and tell me that they sell cars but the individual part prices are inflated, then consider the network providers' offerings as the same thing; they sell bundles, but you can buy a part at a greater cost.
Furthermore, if Verizon wants to offer no-impact data for video coming from the DirecTV servers, it can. Just like T-Mobile provides no-impact data for the numerous video providers included in their Binge-On program.
No it does not. It encourages me to shop around for the company that offers the best incentives and causes other companies to offer more as well.
Ok, let me see if I can explain this for those that don't understand why this is at least anti-competitive and may even be illegal and T-Mobile's binge on is legal:
With T-mobile ANY company that streams Audio or Video can apply to be part of their applicable programs, it doesn't matter if it is their own service or not. This means that all services are on an equal footing with T-mobile.
Now AT&T and Verizon say we will exempt our own services from data caps, but continue to apply the caps to Netflix and the like. What this does is give their own services an unfair competitive advantage, which drives other companies to have lower subscriber levels. If this continues, it drives the competitiors out of business, which then lets them rais etheir prices due to less competition.
If instead they said everyone is on equal footing and being exempt like T-mobile does, then it would be a different story.
With T-mobile ANY company that streams Audio or Video can apply to be part of their applicable programs, it doesn't matter if it is their own service or not. This means that all services are on an equal footing with T-mobile.
Now AT&T and Verizon say we will exempt our own services from data caps, but continue to apply the caps to Netflix and the like. What this does is give their own services an unfair competitive advantage, which drives other companies to have lower subscriber levels. If this continues, it drives the competitiors out of business, which then lets them rais etheir prices due to less competition.
If instead they said everyone is on equal footing and being exempt like T-mobile does, then it would be a different story.
Yes, it does hurt you, at least when they bundle products that directly compete with other companies that are not carriers. Standalone companies tend to do a much better job than carriers, because their sole mission is providing that service, rather than that being a tiny portion of their overall mission.
Thus, the bundling harms consumers in two ways:
- Encouraging use of a lower-quality carrier-provided service for cost reasons removes any incentive to compete on features, causing a race to the bottom.
- It will eventually drive the third-party services out of business, at which point the carriers will crank up their profit margins again, and consumers will be screwed.
The reason the Interent is in the greatest mass communication breakthrough since the printing press and the greatest advancement in commerce since the Industrial Revolution is that it gives everyone the same potential audience with an incredibly low financial barrier to entry. Whether you are CNN or Joe Blow Vlogger, once you are on the Internet your potential audience is anyone in the world that also has free and open access to the Internet. No middlemen, no gatekeepers stand between you and anyone else online.
What many ISPs are trying to do is create their own 'version' of the Internet and penalize their customers for venturing outside of it. Ex. DTV doesn't count against my cap so I'm probably going to stay with DTV's products and services and the third parties that have the money to pay for the 'privilege' of not counting against the arbitrary data cap. This is why we are seeing so many mergers of media and communications companies. The ultimate power is in controlling content, access to content and access to the customers.
Regulations used to prevent these different types of media and communications companies from merging, but they were removed in the name of fostering competition. Unfortunately it's easier to collaborate than compete. For example, ATT didn't buildout a competing video service and DTV didn't buildout a competing ISP; they just merged. This results in less competition in the marketplace, not more. Comcast showed how this was a winning formula when they bought NBC/Universal so that's the blueprint everyone else is trying to follow.
How the Internet is supposed to work is that everyone who pays for Internet access gets the ability to communicate with one another in one, vast virtual space. Ex. I pay my ISP for access to the Internet, Netflix pays their ISP for access to the Internet and we are both on the Internet. If I want to watch movies from Netflix then I just pay Netflix for access to their content. That should be the end of the story, but it's not.
Now via data caps, throttling and/or zero rating, my ISP wants to penalize me for watching Netflix and/or charge Netflix for access to me even though Netflix and I have already paid for access to the Internet. That second level of control and monetary double dipping by ISPs is not how the Internet was designed to work, but it will become the norm if we sit back and do nothing.
ISPs are dumb pipes for data. Nothing more, nothing less. They should not be allowed to turn into gatekeepers that can drive their customers to certain parts of the Internet and away from others.
Not really a good comparison as a car is inherently a collection of parts, but delivering Internet, CableTV and telephone service aren't inherently related at all. A car without wheels can't be driven but CableTV functions exactly the same with or without Internet and telephone service.
Bundles in and of themselves are not inherently good or bad, but bundles used in an anti-competitive manor are bad long term even if they look consumer friendly in the short term. It's like Walmart's low prices. Customers love it until it kills off the neighboring businesses (and jobs) and suddenly Walmart went from being one of many options to the only option.
I think the phrase for that is pennywise, pound foolish.
What many ISPs are trying to do is create their own 'version' of the Internet and penalize their customers for venturing outside of it. Ex. DTV doesn't count against my cap so I'm probably going to stay with DTV's products and services and the third parties that have the money to pay for the 'privilege' of not counting against the arbitrary data cap. This is why we are seeing so many mergers of media and communications companies. The ultimate power is in controlling content, access to content and access to the customers.
Regulations used to prevent these different types of media and communications companies from merging, but they were removed in the name of fostering competition. Unfortunately it's easier to collaborate than compete. For example, ATT didn't buildout a competing video service and DTV didn't buildout a competing ISP; they just merged. This results in less competition in the marketplace, not more. Comcast showed how this was a winning formula when they bought NBC/Universal so that's the blueprint everyone else is trying to follow.
How the Internet is supposed to work is that everyone who pays for Internet access gets the ability to communicate with one another in one, vast virtual space. Ex. I pay my ISP for access to the Internet, Netflix pays their ISP for access to the Internet and we are both on the Internet. If I want to watch movies from Netflix then I just pay Netflix for access to their content. That should be the end of the story, but it's not.
Now via data caps, throttling and/or zero rating, my ISP wants to penalize me for watching Netflix and/or charge Netflix for access to me even though Netflix and I have already paid for access to the Internet. That second level of control and monetary double dipping by ISPs is not how the Internet was designed to work, but it will become the norm if we sit back and do nothing.
ISPs are dumb pipes for data. Nothing more, nothing less. They should not be allowed to turn into gatekeepers that can drive their customers to certain parts of the Internet and away from others.
Not really a good comparison as a car is inherently a collection of parts, but delivering Internet, CableTV and telephone service aren't inherently related at all. A car without wheels can't be driven but CableTV functions exactly the same with or without Internet and telephone service.
Bundles in and of themselves are not inherently good or bad, but bundles used in an anti-competitive manor are bad long term even if they look consumer friendly in the short term. It's like Walmart's low prices. Customers love it until it kills off the neighboring businesses (and jobs) and suddenly Walmart went from being one of many options to the only option.
I think the phrase for that is pennywise, pound foolish.
Thats not what "bundling" is, in the sense that term is used in commerce. Bundling is combining separate whole goods or services, and not selling them individually (or pricing the individuals so high as to make it economically unrealistic).
If I want a car, I'm not going to buy a bunch of parts because a bunch of parts are not a car. Only a whole car is a car. Further, I have the option to buy the parts - if I need only one part I can buy it, the dealer even encourages this. A car can be bundled with, for example, a bike rack. I don't need a bike rack, but the dealer could try to force me to buy it by bundling.
Likewise, internet service is a whole service. If I want only internet service, the carrier might try to bundle it with a landline and cable tv, when I don't want those things.
Look, all over the world there are different systems under different regulations. Everywhere that bundling is prevalent, prices for those services are higher and quality is lower. Everywhere that bundling is disincentivized or prohibited, services is more affordable to consumers and of higher quality. Could be a huge conspiracy by the lizard people, or it could be that bundling is in fact bad for consumers.