AT&T and Verizon Facing FCC Scrutiny After Exempting Their Own Apps From Data Caps

[Steve.P.JobsFan]

I love Sprint

I think you're the only person in the country to have ever said that.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Net neutrality will be dead soon after January 20th anyway. AT&T and Verizon are just jumping the shark a little so they can whine to their paid representatives and get it killed.

So much will come through Congress in the next four years that will beat consumers up so much that protects us from predator corporations will be axed...

 

[harriska2]

I think that there should be a regulation by which you pay your provider by usage. No data can have a different charge in price or changed by amount of bandwidth (discount). That way people that abuse, pay more. People that don't use, pay less.

I don't think the belief that netflix pays their internet service (pipe) and you pay your internet service (pipe) and that everything in between is of no consequence. I believe it is of consequence. if there were just one company in the world offering streaming at some super low price thus they captured tons of traffic, the consumer end of the internet provider could get hammered and would need to upgrade. So I don't know how to fix that other than charging for usage (without discounts or upcharging). If that end user provider gets hammered, they would have income to upgrade from the users that use the service.

I do think that the US government should make fiber to every home, even in the boondocks, a priority and it should be socialized. I'm sick of utilities using my property without easement and they don't even keep it up. A pole has already fallen on my property years ago. At least with the government, I can go the public utilities commission/nonprofit to complain.

 

[DominikHoffmann]

Not charging for their own services but charging for competitors does hurt you, whether you realize it or not.

In other words, you think that GEICO should not be allowed to give me a discount on my car insurance, when I also add a home owner’s policy, right? And this is, because it disadvantages those customers who have auto policies with GEICO and home owner’s with State Farm, because GEICO doesn’t extend the same discount to them.

I don’t see the logic in that.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan, 1964

 

[iZac]

I'll wait for the electric company to start telling me that if I use their own bulbs and sponsored devices (Samsung?) that I can enjoy "zero energy" and a cheaper electricity bill

 

[Moorepheus]

In other words, you think that GEICO should not be allowed to give me a discount on my car insurance, when I also add a home owner’s policy, right? And this is, because it disadvantages those customers who have auto policies with GEICO and home owner’s with State Farm, because GEICO doesn’t extend the same discount to them.

I don’t see the logic in that.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan, 1964

The better analogy is you gas bill. Let's say that gas company A owns the gas lines to your house and gas company B wants to supply you with the gas at a cheaper rate then gas company A charges. However gas company A doesn't charge a delivery fee if you use their gas. However if you use gas company B's gas they charge you a fee. What happens is gas company B can't afford
to be in business because the fees charged make you as a consumer to get your gas from company A. When company B goes out of business, you are now stuck with one company to get gas from and then they can charge you whatever they want, and the start charging you the same fee they were going to charge company B.

 

[alphaod]

You win some, you lose some.

As a DirecTV customer being exempt is a great thing since I am satisfied, but I can see the problem if someone were say a Comcast cable customer trying to stream on the AT&T network.

 

[mrjr101]

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.

About the electric utility example, why wouldn't the consumer use another electric utility company if he chooses to buy a better appliance? Ohh that's the key. The real issue lies in the ability of the consumer to look elsewhere. For the most part, there are way more options for consumers in the telecom world than in the electricity consumption market. Due to the fact that most consumers have the ability to switch phone companies I don't see this practice as an issue at all. This actually drives competition. Perks and discounts is not shafting it to consumers. Buying a service from a phone company with the condition (or perk) that they will not charge me extra with a service that I already have is not hurting consumers and it is not limiting competition. Whereas in the case of the electric company where the consumer doesn't have a choice to go somewhere else yes I see the problem.
[doublepost=1480870488][/doublepost]Question. T Mobile subscribers can get SlingTV for a discounted price and they do not count data usage against you if you use those services. All other telecom company subscribers pay their regular price. Is this the same thing? Why or why not? Should it be illegal? Why or why not? Thanks.

 

[jimbobb24]

Not charging for their own services but charging for competitors does hurt you, whether you realize it or not.

No it doesn't. This is all just nonsense from fevered minds about what could happen in some narrow sense. Net neutrality is a farce that for the most part limits cool innovations that could be created. If you don't like it....switch networks.

 

[Shop]

Still trying to understand why some people would be happy for AT&T to charge more..

 

[Moorepheus]

No it doesn't. This is all just nonsense from fevered minds about what could happen in some narrow sense. Net neutrality is a farce that for the most part limits cool innovations that could be created. If you don't like it....switch networks.

Remember that, when there is only one service provider, because these fees that ISPs are charging their competitors will run them out of business, then you will be paying 2 or 3 times more for the same service.

 

[Muk4r0]

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

Fair Business !, owning the infrastructure and not playing with the same rules as everybody else damages the ecosystem, it creates unbalance and a very notable advantage for the companies owning and offering data/content services. It definitely will create a chain reaction against net neutrality and a precedent that must not happen, this is television network behavior invading the internet realm, don't fell for it brother ... internet must absorb tv services, not the other way around !

 

[hexor]

This already skews the playing field because people will have an incentive to use the zero rated service so that they can subscribe to a smaller data plan. What if a private company bought toll roads in a state (like they did in Indiana) and didn't charge a toll for certain cars based on some criteria that benefits the toll road owners?

 

[KdParker]

These companies just need to chill a few months, by then Trump will gut the FCC and net neutrality. They can save some serious lawyer fees.

LOL. Trump will not touch the FCC.
[doublepost=1480955515][/doublepost]

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.

Both things you just said are completely wrong.

Pro corporate is not the same thing as pro-consumer. and what makes you think that the republicans are pro-consumer?

 

[itsthenewdc]

Even though unlimited texting is a common plan feature now, all carriers never charge for their own text messages they send to you. Why should video be any different? It's still something the carrier is sending its user, using a feature it may charge to people.

 

[dysamoria]

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.

You aren't just wrong. You appear to be fractally wrong. There's nothing about your above statement that is correct at any level. The incoming administration is the OPPOSITE of pro-consumer BECAUSE it is pro-corporate.

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.

Another anti-regulation person that doesn't understand that regulation exists to PROTECT people from corporations and PROTECT the economy from being destroyed by corporations. Regulation is a response to abuses. It isn't some arbitrary action taken on to "control people". Regulation is why we no longer have rivers catching fire or child labor. DE-regulation is why ISP costs are soaring and consumer choice of ISPs is a bad joke (as in, there isn't any for most people in the USA).

Yes, this DOES affect you, but the impact might be suspended until AFTER Verizon ruins their competitors, raises your costs, and you no longer have any other choice BUT Verizon.

Stating that you won't change your mind basically tells us that you are incapable of learning when better data becomes available (such as Trump already violating his promise to "drain the swamp" by his act of planning to fill the swamp with sewage.

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).

This is somewhat true for landlines using fiber. It is not at all true for the airwaves. Spectra is not infinite. The cellular ISPs have been pressuring and lobbying the government to free up reserved spectra so they can sell more cellular contracts to more customers. Wireless is not the answer to everything because it's not a sustainable goal.

While these companies are busy chasing the deepest profits via the least expensive infrastructure, they are wasting time and resources by not building out a solid land-line fiber infrastructure across the USA. Verizon is actually (or was) under investigation over the way they took government incentive money with the promise to build out fiber lines...and then decided they weren't going to do that any more. They did not roll out the amount of fiber that they agreed to roll out (of course they claim they have). FIOS is dead. Verizon has stated without any question that they are not interested in rolling out fiber. It doesn't suit their profit margin preferences. As many of these ISP companies, Verizon wrongheadedly thinks they are in the business of selling contracts. They are supposed to be in the business of providing a service.

The USA has the worst Internet infrastructure compared to any first world nation and this wireless-everything detour is increasing the distance between us and a quality Internet infrastructure. The way things are going, I will die of old age before it's possible to freely move around the USA without worrying about whether or not your new location is a dead zone for high speed internet (and I'm not even talking about broadband). When it comes to choices, we have none in most areas because of deregulation. My Verizon DSL is abysmal, is bundled to a land line (I tried to get a dry line when I moved into my house in 2005 and they lied to me that it was not possible), costs a ridiculous amount of money (I canceled caller ID to cut my bill by $10, and just two months ago they increased my bill by about $13, making it higher than it was before I canceled the last optional service left to cancel).

This is all because of the obsession with wireless (and deregulation)!

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.

A reason to build bigger pipes? They have no such reason. The biggest pipeline is fiber optic land lines, which they have flatly refused to continue building. They have one motivator: serving shareholder value. Investing the least possible is what they will do so long as their only motivator is Wall Street and profit margins. Wireless is the least costly format for the most profit. (See my response to people above) This is why regulation is necessary. Big corporations usually do not do the right thing for society because it is the right thing to do for society. Coercion is necessary to force such entities to support the societies they leach off of. These companies will build bigger pipes only when they are compelled to (and the incoming administration is far less consumer oriented and far less pro-society than the outgoing administration which was busy doing nothing about corporate antisocial behavior other than letting it keep on getting worse), or when it serves them greater profits to do so (and that's going to be never). If you think consumers have any say in this, well, I have an invisible hand to sell you...

About the electric utility example, why wouldn't the consumer use another electric utility company if he chooses to buy a better appliance? Ohh that's the key. The real issue lies in the ability of the consumer to look elsewhere. For the most part, there are way more options for consumers in the telecom world than in the electricity consumption market. Due to the fact that most consumers have the ability to switch phone companies I don't see this practice as an issue at all. This actually drives competition. Perks and discounts is not shafting it to consumers. Buying a service from a phone company with the condition (or perk) that they will not charge me extra with a service that I already have is not hurting consumers and it is not limiting competition. Whereas in the case of the electric company where the consumer doesn't have a choice to go somewhere else yes I see the problem.
[doublepost=1480870488][/doublepost]Question. T Mobile subscribers can get SlingTV for a discounted price and they do not count data usage against you if you use those services. All other telecom company subscribers pay their regular price. Is this the same thing? Why or why not? Should it be illegal? Why or why not? Thanks.

Wait. What? Where I live, I have two choices of ISP. One is awful and the other is awful. One costs too much and the other costs too much. There are a few little companies that seem to be alternatives, but it turns out they exist only because Verizon sold off a lot of their DSL lines because they didn't want to spend any money maintaining land lines (they've been divesting themselves of DSL instead of upgrading it, and they ended FIOS rollout before finishing their commitments, which were never slated to be in my area). If I want to choose a different provider, I might be able to choose to make my situation worse, but not better. If you call that "more choice", then I have an invisible hand to sell you (don't worry, even if the guy above buys it, I can still sell it to you too).

 

[moonjelly]

Bundling is NOT BAD for consumers. It happens every day. When you buy a car, it is a bundling of parts.

There is some confusion here between bundling, volume discounts, and monopolistic practices. This is sometimes a gray area. In this case, it is very clear. Using your car bundle metaphor as a starting point, what if one company bought the street maintenance contract for your county, and street maintenance was taxed per mile? They cap your miles. Then they exempt travel to affiliated businesses as a "free" "benefit" to you the consumer? Then they exempt travel to businesses who advertise on their billboards. If you want to run a business in that county, you have to "pay to play". It is racketeering at a corporate level. It is monopolistic.

This is exactly why the Justice department will ok one merger but not another. Its the same reason utilities are publicly controlled. Because the company who provides access to something like travel or communication or water is in a position of guaranteed abuse. This is data over public broadcast frequencies. The carriers "pave roads" on public "easements". They must not have any influence over who goes where.

 

[moonjelly]

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.

Wake up. You are on the right track. However the pressure comes from big media in general who are fighting to influence every access to consumers; radio, TV, cable, and wireless internet. Guess which one isn't controlled by one of the giant media conglomerates? It makes them crazy that everyone [especially the young] has a phone in their pocket used for entertainment and communications, with net neutrality. This is the FCC blocking giant media conglomerates from influencing YOUR data bandwidth.

The fact that cable companies are constantly pushing the limit on this exact issue should clue you that the FCC is on the right track. Unfortunately cable companies are not regulated as either a public utility or as broadcast communications by the FCC. That's why special net neutrality laws were required for data. Cable companies were doing exactly this, bandwidth throttling with exceptions for affiliated/sponsored content. Guess who was paying them for preferential bandwidth?

It is completely in the public interest to also regulate cable as a utility. Or pay public utilities to build an all fiber data network. And it is completely in our interest for the FCC to ban this preferential treatment of data.
[doublepost=1480978565][/doublepost]

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.

Yes they are. They are charging different rates for data from different services. That is exactly what they are doing.

Their services get free data. Competing services use paid data. How did you miss that?

The majority of consumers have a data cap. If this isn't challenged we all will. Data used = bandwidth. This is bandwidth throttling.

Two or three carriers will crush or control or skim money from every [mobile] music streaming, video, retail, or cloud service. And also thereby control advertisement. They make billions. The cost is passed on to the consumer, who gets no value added. If this isn't anti-trust, nothing is.
[doublepost=1480980373][/doublepost]

In other words, you think that GEICO should not be allowed to give me a discount on my car insurance, when I also add a home owner’s policy, right? And this is, because it disadvantages those customers who have auto policies with GEICO and home owner’s with State Farm, because GEICO doesn’t extend the same discount to them.

I don’t see the logic in that.

This isn't about quantity discount. It is about anti-trust. Please read up. Not in the dictionary. Read some famous anti-trust cases. This is not "liberalism". It is capitalism 101. It is pro-business. Monopolies stagnate the economy, innovation, competition, and capital growth.

Starting with your metaphor, this is about two or three giant insurance companies controlling access to all car and home related business. And thereby controlling whole industries; real-estate, automakers, home improvement, construction, savings and loan.

In their marketing material they make it sound like free services to the consumer to fool simple people. It is not more efficient or a better business model. They just maneuver themselves into a position to skim everyone and form monopolies.

 

[M. Gustave]

Yes they are. They are charging different rates for data from different services. That is exactly what they are doing.

Their services get free data. Competing services use paid data. How did you miss that?

How is this any different than a cable company running a cable into your house to distribute their content? Were you complaining about that being antitrust? TimeWarner didn't allow competing television services to use their "bandwidth", did they?

And how is this "free data"?!? I already pay AT&T for my monthly data, and now on top of that I'm paying them $35 a month for this new tv service. Please tell me where the "free" is, because I'm missing it.

 

[moonjelly]

How is this any different than a cable company running a cable into your house to distribute their content? Were you complaining about that being antitrust? TimeWarner didn't allow competing television services to use their "bandwidth", did they?

There are anti-trust issues with cable. It revolves around them having an exclusive contract with your local municipality to use public utility easements. U.S. Cable companies are among the most hated and unscrupulous businesses in the free world. Which side are you arguing with that?

And how is this "free data"?!? I already pay AT&T for my monthly data, and now on top of that I'm paying them $35 a month for this new tv service. Please tell me where the "free" is, because I'm missing it.

The first words of the article we are discussing: "Both AT&T and Verizon offer apps and streaming services that don't count against the data cap they impose on customers..." It isn't free. Its marketing that confuses people into not realizing ATT/Verizon are charging two different prices depending on the source of the service.

Their services get "free" data. Competing services use paid data.

They are using their trusted position as carrier to shift cost to the competition, thus anti-trust. Now go ahead and try to compete against them...

 

[jigzaw]

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.

Carriers influencing content isn't my fear. We can always rebel against carriers. Whatever current administration happens to be in power influencing content is my worry. Why can't we say dirty words on the radio? The same agency that regulates the radio has only in the past couple years declared jurisdiction over the internet. It's just a matter of time before some hard-right administration starts pushing to clean it up.

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.

You mean dumb pipes like TV and radio that the FCC strictly regulates content over? It's the Breitbarters getting their hands on a government agency that now has the power to set rules for the internet that worries me.

 

[4jasontv]

Carriers influencing content isn't my fear. We can always rebel against carriers. Whatever current administration happens to be in power influencing content is my worry. Why can't we say dirty words on the radio?

Because the end user does not own the distribution of radio. Society owns it, and society has decided they don't want those words used.

The same agency that regulates the radio has only in the past couple years declared jurisdiction over the internet. It's just a matter of time before some hard-right administration starts pushing to clean it up.

Like the way that TV has actually relinquished licenses over the very same words you just argued for on radio?

You mean dumb pipes like TV and radio that the FCC strictly regulates content over?

Nope. Expensive pipes that use wavelengths are regulated. Cable TV and satellite radio are pretty much ok to do whatever they want. That's why Skinamax and Playboy TV was (still?) a thing.

It's the Breitbarters getting their hands on a government agency that now has the power to set rules for the internet that worries me.

It's about the cost of entry. Since the internet relies on organizations working together someone has to take a stand to ensure reasonable opportunity for new competition to enter the market.

For a similar reason cell phone companies should be heavily regulated. This is their business model: We as a society have a limited number of wavelengths, and since we can't each have one we license them to organizations that can make the most use of them. We offer them the opportunity to rent their interpretation of the most practical use of that wavelength in exchange for improving society. As soon as they stop improving society they relinquish their right to use it to another party willing to do so.

 

[moonjelly]

Carriers influencing content isn't my fear. We can always rebel against carriers. Whatever current administration happens to be in power influencing content is my worry. Why can't we say dirty words on the radio? The same agency that regulates the radio has only in the past couple years declared jurisdiction over the internet. It's just a matter of time before some hard-right administration starts pushing to clean it up.


You mean dumb pipes like TV and radio that the FCC strictly regulates content over? It's the Breitbarters getting their hands on a government agency that now has the power to set rules for the internet that worries me.

An understandable fear. Mainstream media having a stake in internet marketability could only add pressure to set content standards.

The extreme left and right are equally dangerous. Will it be to provide a safe zone from bullying and hate speech? Where hate speech becomes a moving target of anything criticizing far left politics. Reference the current issues around freedom of speech at liberal college campuses. Or will it be to root out the flag burners and sympathizers? More likely they will use both, like the tag team divide and conquer strategy they use in elections.

I would like to see net neutrality laws expanded to further protect the net like private phone communications and private mail.

But this particular issue is the FCC preventing unfair business practices and media conglomerate control of the internet.

[edited for spelling]

 

[LethalWolfe]

In other words, you think that GEICO should not be allowed to give me a discount on my car insurance, when I also add a home owner’s policy, right? And this is, because it disadvantages those customers who have auto policies with GEICO and home owner’s with State Farm, because GEICO doesn’t extend the same discount to them.

When you buy insurance from GEICO though it doesn't mean GEICO gets to weigh in and influence every other insurance decision you make. GEICO can't degrade the coverage you get from State Farm nor can they charge State Farm an 'access fee' if State Farm wants you as a customer. On the other hand, your ISP touches every piece of data that you send and every piece that is sent to you.

No it doesn't. This is all just nonsense from fevered minds about what could happen in some narrow sense. Net neutrality is a farce that for the most part limits cool innovations that could be created. If you don't like it....switch networks.

Every innovation that's happened has happened in part because data flowing across the 'Net was treated neutrally by ISPs. Net Neutrality has been the de facto standard for the Internet for nearly its entire existence. It wasn't officially codified in the past because there wasn't a need, but now there is.

It's only been relatively recently that ISPs have started flexing their muscle as gatekeepers with things like data caps, throttling and zero rating as well as merging with media companies to create large, vertically integrated conglomerates. If you want innovation to come to a screeching halt then allowing Comcast, ATT, Verizon, etc.,. to stand between Internet businesses and their customers is a great way to get that terrible ball rolling.

And we've only talked about commerce here. The basic communication and Free Speech implications are down right chilling as we rapidly approach a time when nearly everything we read, watch, listen to and/or say is funneled though our Internet connection.

Like I said before, ISPs are just dumb pipes for data, nothing more, nothing less. When I make a phone call I expect the phone company to, within reason, provide the best connection possible. They shouldn't intentionally degrade it when I call Business X but not Business Y. When I choose 2-day shipping on a package I expect it to get there in two days. It shouldn't take a week just because the shipping company isn't friends with the recipient. Data from Netflix or Google Maps or Hearthstone is the same as data from DTV. It's all 1s and 0s that has to go from a server, down piece of fiber to a cell tower and finally to my phone.

This is somewhat true for landlines using fiber. It is not at all true for the airwaves. Spectra is not infinite. The cellular ISPs have been pressuring and lobbying the government to free up reserved spectra so they can sell more cellular contracts to more customers. Wireless is not the answer to everything because it's not a sustainable goal.

You are correct that current gen wireless faces bottlenecks that fiber, and to a lesser extent cable, do not, but even the wireless limitations aren't as grave as the mobile companies would want us to believe. Spectrum is finite, but spectrum is only part of formula. By adding towers you split the load so you service more users in a given area without any performance penalties. It's most likely fiber connecting these towers to the physical networks and fiber doesn't have the inherent physical limitations that phone lines and coaxial cable does so the future upgrade potential is practically limitless. IIRC the undersea cables that go between the continents are only made up of like 10 or 12 optical fibers (each about the diameter of a human hair).

What this boils down to is ISPs wanting to lay the ground work to get customers condition to thinking that data is finite and thus worthy of the monetary premium that is being applied to it. The ISPs only get one shot at this which is why both land line and wireless are pushing hard to set precedent in their favor.

How is this any different than a cable company running a cable into your house to distribute their content? Were you complaining about that being antitrust? TimeWarner didn't allow competing television services to use their "bandwidth", did they?

And how is this "free data"?!? I already pay AT&T for my monthly data, and now on top of that I'm paying them $35 a month for this new tv service. Please tell me where the "free" is, because I'm missing it.

That's how cable worked before all the mergers and cable companies agreeing to not compete with each other. Moonjelly mentioned exclusive agreements with local governments but that's not really a thing anymore. At least one major cable company, Comcast, has officially said that they don't want to compete head-to-head because it's too expensive. It's more profitable for everyone to just sit in their respective monopolies and wait for a 'business friendly' government to allow them to merge.

When I was a kid one cable company paid for the cable to be run to the home but it was leased out to competitions at fair market value thus enabling competition w/o the expensive redundancy of everyone having to run their own line to the home. Same way with telephone service where multiple service providers shared the same 'last mile' infrastructure.

Remember dial-up? We picked our telephone service provider and then we could pick form a number of IPS. AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, EarthLink, NetZero, local/regional ISPs, etc., but there was still only one phone connection coming into each home. That was competition. That was choice. And in the US that was killed because providing Internet service via cable, for example, is less regulated than providing broadband via dial-up phone lines. It's 2016 and the average American customer has MORE ISP options for dial-up than for broadband. Look at European countries that force broadband providers to share physical infrastructure and you'll see that there are dozens of ISPs offering faster speeds for cheaper than what you can get in the US.

Now is probably a good time to talk about the difference between between an "information service" and a "telecommunication service". An example of an information service is cableTV. You pay for information (in this example TV shows, movies, etc.,) to be delivered to you. It's largely a one-way street. An example of a telecommunication service is the telephone. You don't pay for information directly, you pay for a service that allows you to exchange and/or receive information with others. It's a two way street. If I call you on the phone our service providers aren't providing any information, they are just providing a means for you and I to exchange information. Why is this relevant? Because information services are LESS regulated than telecommunication services.

When cable companies were allowed to become ISPs they were still categorized as information services even though the Internet is inherently a network of peers exchanging information and the ISP is providing a telecommunications service (not an information service). For example, when you go online you exchange traffic with your email provider, with Netflix, with Battle.net, with Target.com. It's a series of peer-to-peer communications. Your ISP is not producing and serving the information itself, it's merely providing a conduit with which this information can flow back and forth between clients and servers. VOIP is probably the most black and white example of this. VOIP is literally making a phone call via your ISP. Why should a phone call made via your ISP be inherently less protected under the law than a phone call made via your phone company?

Why can't we say dirty words on the radio? The same agency that regulates the radio has only in the past couple years declared jurisdiction over the internet. It's just a matter of time before some hard-right administration starts pushing to clean it up.

It's an apples to oranges comparison but basically we can't say 'dirty words' on OTA radio during the day because children could be listening, and since their airwaves are a shared public resource the public (with the government acting as their agent) gets to decide what's acceptable community standards and what is not. If 'the public' decides that they don't want m********* to be said on OTA radio during the day then that's what happens.

AFAIK, between the hours of 10pm and 6am (when children are assumed to be sound asleep) broadcasters can air whatever they want short of things that would qualify as obscene. For those of us old enough to remember, it was during these late night hours that some channels would show very softcore porn and many of the ads were for 1-900 sex lines.

If you subscribe to satellite radio, sat/cable TV, the Internet, etc., the regulations governing OTA broadcasts don't apply for a few reasons, but basically it is assumed that since you paid for access to this content you want to be exposed to it (or at the very least that you know what you are in for so you can't cry foul if you run across a bare nipple or something). Even with this more liberal playing field most cable channels are pretty reserved when it comes to nudity and language because they don't want to alienate mainstream viewers.

I agree that having a free and open Internet is important (and Net Neutrality is vital to that goal) but you need to keep your eye on Congress for that if you are on the lookout for laws that would police the content on the Internet (ex. SOPA, PIPA, DMCA, etc.,).

Again, Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the Interent. It's about the government telling ISPs that *they* can't control/manipulate access to the Interent to further they own financial interest at the expense of Interent users.

I would like to see net neutrality laws expanded to further protect the net like private phone communications and private mail.

AFAIK privacy and anti-hacking laws already protect electronic communications.


Pardon if this post is disjointed and/or repetitive at times. I wrote it over the course of the day.

 

[0007776]

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?

If you want to use fruit as an analogy the more appropriate one would be I control the road you have to go down to get to the store to buy your fruit, I also happen to own a store that sells fruit. Unfortunately the fruit in my store is all just about to spoil, and most people don't like my store and prefer one of the competing stores that have good fruit. However since I control the road I let you come to shop at my store for free, but charge you extra to go and shop at one of my competitors. Eventually since everyone goes to the store that is free to get to the good stores you out of business and now I can increase the prices of my low quality fruit since there are no competitors left.