AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like

from the not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper dept

For some time now we’ve warned how the FCC’s decision to not ban zero rating (exempting some content from usage caps) was going to come back and bite net neutrality on the posterior. Unlike India, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, and other countries, the FCC crafted net neutrality rules that completely avoided tackling the issue of usage caps and zero rating. Then, despite ongoing promises that the agency was looking into the issue, the FCC did nothing as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast all began exempting their own content from usage caps while still penalizing competitors.

Fast forward to this week, and AT&T has delivered what may very well be the killing blow to net neutrality thanks predominantly to the FCC’s failure to see the writing on the wall.

AT&T this week is launching its new “DirecTV Now” streaming video service. According to the full AT&T announcement, the service offers various packages of streamed TV content ranging from $35 to $70 per month. Thanks to AT&T’s looming $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, AT&T’s even throwing in HBO for an additional $5 per month, the lowest price point in the industry. Though a bit hamstrung to upsell you to traditional DirecTV (two stream limit, no 4K content, no NFL Sunday Ticket, no DVR functionality), all told it’s a fairly compelling package for cord cutters.

But somewhat buried in AT&T’s announcement is the long-expected confirmation that this new service won’t count against usage caps if you’re an AT&T wireless subscriber:

“And, if you?re an AT&T Mobility customer, DIRECTV will pick up the tab for data to help you achieve all your binge-worthy goals. Data Free TV means you won?t use your AT&T mobile data for watching DIRECTV NOW or FreeVIEW in the App. Fullscreen will also cover your data for streaming in the Fullscreen App on the AT&T mobile network.”

For consumers who have no idea what zero rating or net neutrality even is (read: most of them), this sounds like a great idea. Most don’t know that usage caps are an entirely-arbitrary construct completely untethered from network or financial necessity. As such, they believe they’re getting something for free. This collective illusion means fewer annoyed users, which means less political pressure on the FCC, which is why the FCC failed to act. The problem, as we’ve noted time and time again, is that AT&T is violently distorting the open market and giving its own content a distinct and decidedly unfair market advantage.

Because most consumers either aren’t bright or informed enough to understand this doesn’t mean it’s not happening all the same.

In addition to existing offerings by Dish (Sling TV) and Sony (Playstation Vue), the “over the top” market is about to get flooded with an absolute torrent of live TV streaming competitors including Apple, YouTube, Hulu, and Amazon. Ideally, these services would all compete with DirecTV Now based on quality and pricing. But under AT&T’s new zero rating umbrella, all of those services will count against AT&T’s usage caps, while DirecTV Now won’t. Owning the pipe and the content will protect AT&T from the full brunt of increased competition in the space.

This is precisely the sort of “new normal” AT&T has spent the last decade trying to build, and exactly the sort of future net neutrality rules were supposed to help us avoid. And while the current Wheeler-led FCC recently finally acknowledged that it now understands this sort of behavior is anti-competitive, it’s too little, too late. There’s every indication that Trump’s new FCC intends to not only gut net neutrality, but the FCC entirely. Trump’s telecom transition team is filled to the brim with telecom-sector cronies who can’t even admit telecom monopolies are real. Large ISP executives and investors are thrilled.

With no (or unenforced) net neutrality rules and a toothless FCC, you can expect all of the incumbent broadband ISPs to follow AT&T’s lead, while folks like Trump telecom advisor Jeffrey Eisenach regurgitate telecom sector think tank pieces trying to claim that zero rating is a huge boon to consumers. These are men and economists for hire who’ll breathlessly inform you they adore “free markets” and open competition, while simultaneously working to thwart competition at every turn — whether it’s dismantling the level streaming playing field with zero rating, or letting telecom giants literally write abysmal telecom law.

Those who have actually paid attention to net neutrality realize this may very well be the beginning of the end for the idea — or at best a very long, dark and unfortunate detour off of the path — with the ultimate irony being that because zero rating is seen as little more than “free stuff” by many misinformed consumers, net neutrality’s death knell will arrive to thunderous public applause.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: at&t, directv

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

it would have happened anyway because of what Trump is already starting to do to the FCC and to Net Neutrality. if Wheeler had done something about ‘zero rating’, it would have been abolished along with everything else the FCC has accomplished. people dont yet realise yet that the financial crash was purposefully orchestrated and everything that has happened since then has been to protect those individuals and companies from doing or losing anything at all. everything has been done, bit by bit, to turn the planet into a giant corporation. we are fast becoming a Capitalist Planet, which will be almost impossible to change because every supposed democratic country is now doing what the ‘undemocratic/communist’ countries do and were condemned for doing, SPYING ON EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, FOR EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

” financial crash was purposefully orchestrated “

They always are. This is a core and rudimentary evil power desired and granted by central and fractional banking systems. We have an endless supply of incorrectly educated economists.

Money is power… you will bleed before you pry it from the hands of the Federalists or Central Banker types.

“A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson

Every step this nation takes is usually a step away from the Founders and with every step we lose a little more liberty.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Where do you see the article saying Trump is to blame for this?

It’s true that the Obama administration hasn’t been doing enough to stop this; I get the impression that that’s largely because of the extent of the political opposition from those who object to anything the Democratic Party supports, but it’s still the case.

However, the Obama administration’s FCC – as represented by Tom Wheeler – also hasn’t been outright opposed to the idea that there’s anything that even might need stopping; from what little I’e been able to see, Wheeler even seems to have been leaning more and more in the direction of accepting that it’s a problem and perhaps eventually taking action.

All indications thus far are that the Trump administration will be outright opposed to the idea that there’s anything to fix, and will try to roll back the other good things that the Obama-administration FCC has done.

Saying that a new decision-maker X will be worse on a subject than the current decision-maker Y does not equate to blaming X for the current state of Y.

ShadowNinja (profile) says:

Re: Rules change

I wish it would backfire in their face and get them classified as utilities to stop this kind of rampant abuse, but I highly doubt it.

Just look at how much partisan politics turns people against their own self interests (such as Republican politicians supporting monopoly laws for incumbent ISP’s, which screws their own residents out of more affordable/faster internet connections).

All the splintering of the media and how the ISP’s are the same people who own much of the media is making it much harder to fight against them to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Rules change

I’m not so sure. As the article pointed out, the vast majority of the public is being hugely misinformed and celebrates actions that are not in their benefit because of pretty wording and a nice bow.

Don’t get me wrong, I want what you are saying and I’ll try and be as optimistic about it happening, because it very well could. I just don’t know anymore and with how fast false info is spreading, the masses could very well remain in the dark.

I hope you’re right though, I really do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The problem is it takes time to compress/un-compress files. Especially if you’re talking live streaming videos with huge resolutions and top of the line cameras like a TV show.

Maybe someone could invent an encryption algorithm like in Silicon Valley (if you’ve seen season 1 of that HBO TV show), but for now it’s just fantasy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately the more detail you have in a video, the harder it is to compress, at least without effectively reducing its resolution. Double the video resolution requires 4 times the data. Also the higher resolution makes more detail, like skin and hair texture visible, which reduces the compression available due to value runs, or constant values between frames.
In short, heavy compression is the same as reducing resolution, because it throws away details.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

In short, heavy compression is the same as reducing resolution, because it throws away details.

That’s lossy compression. There is lossless compression which results in (as the name suggests) no loss of detail. Now whether a particular video can be compressed enough for a particular use case with a lossless encoder is a different question.

Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There is extensive work being done in this field, and steady progress is made.

You’ll recognize it by the array of acronyms you’ve seen used for video: MPEG2, H.263, WMV, MP4, H.264, HEVC, H.265, etc.

These each represent different compression and container technologies from various competitors or standards bodies. And, over time, they get better and better at compressing video.

They don’t actually improve that much because of better math (compression algorithms) but rather get better because of Moore’s law. The math is fairly well known and unchanging, but Moore offers more encode/decode power in silicon which enables real-time capture or rendering of these tightly-packed, mathed-out compressed files.

The trick, as usual, isn’t just to get a better compression, but also to get that standard widely used across media companies and hardware makers.

For example, the smartphone video era was powered mostly by MP4, a file format from the MPEG and the ITU (Moving Pictures Expert Group, International Telecom Union). It is a.k.a H.264.

The reason a common standard works so well is that phones/players can have a dedicated hardware acceleration chip that renders the video. This makes for fast decoding, and lower power consumption than the alternative: running a software decoder on your general processor. Dedicated hardware means your phone battery doesn’t die after 30 minutes of video.

H.264 is currently getting replaced with H.265, a.k.a HEVC, although it is not a sure thing until this achieves mass-market acceptance.

Anyways, this has been ridiculously simplified because the video encoding, compression, and transport world is so fucking complicated I cannot ever get my head around it.

Suffice to say that it is very difficult to take a MP4 file and compress it, because it has already been compressed like the earth’s core by dedicated hardware.

Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

BTW, this takes us to what T-Mo does with BingeOn.

Instead of trying to further compress MP4 files, which I indicated was nigh impossible, T-Mo instead does something that CAN be done: reduce the screen resolution.

So if a vid is being asked for in 1080p, and sent in 1080P, BingeOn transcodes it as a man-in-the-middle, and sends a reduced 480P file. THAT can be much smaller.

Anonymous Coward says:

Barking up the wrong tree.

If this was a functioning government, which upheld the laws (stop laughing, I’m making a point here,) this wouldn’t be an FCC issue. This is really an antitrust issue. (See Standard Oil or Loews Theaters.) Antitrust calls for producers and distribution to be kept separate, to prevent this very problem.

Unfortunately, in the real world, antitrust is primarily a function of the DoJ and the US AG, so, yeah.

Anonymous Coward says:

My concern is not the zero rating of a given carrier. It is what happens when you stream company X’s content over a competing provider? I believe that the competitor will cripple the bandwidth allowed from the other companies. I truly believe that Verizon does this with YouTube data.

I personally have ATT as my wireless carrier and Verizon Fios as my home provider with an expensive monthly internet/TV/phone bundle. Depending on the channel lineup of the ATT offering I may be able to cut the cord for a net savings of around 130$ a month. So there is the part that makes my happy about this. My worry is that I switch Verizon to straight internet and they degrade any traffic from ATT/Netflix/YouTube.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

— I believe that the competitor will cripple the bandwidth allowed from the other companies.

If that is happening then the ISP should be purchasing more bandwidth to the rest of the Internet. If they don’t then they are selling you a lie.

Also, the ‘competitor’ is not crippling the bandwidth its the ISP’s customer who is REQUESTING the content.

Zero rating/unneutral Internet is like a shady shipping company that extorts extra money from people:
I pay Verizon trucking company $34 to pickup a shipment of DVD movies from Netflix and bring them to my house.
The Verizon driver pulls into Netflix and says:
“Be a shame if your customers never got their merchandise and you go out of business. We will make sure the shipment is not , um, ‘lost’ if you pay us $5. But don’t worry, if you won’t pay we will just make your customer pay the extra $5 for you. Either way we are getting that extra money or this shipment will be lost”

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Competition is coming

The technology for wireless delivery of bandwidth is advancing by leaps and bounds. Soon there will be real competition.

Bandwidth wants to be cheap.

For example, There are big players who want to make this happen – not least, Google and Facebook.

Once there’s real competition in the ISP business, none of this stuff will fly anymore.

Takes patience, tho.

Whoever says:

Wheeler's endgame?

Is this Wheeler’s endgame? Was his approach all a sham?

Because of his history, we were sceptical of him when he first became chairman of the FCC. But then he won us over with his apparent support of net neutrality.

Now, it is clear that his approach to enforcing net neutrality is failing. But was that the original objective? To make it look like he supported net neutrality and was opposed to anti-net-neutrality from the big ISPs, but eventually fail and allow net neutrality to fall by the wayside?

Anonymous Coward says:

Er - not AT&T

I think the most damning thing to consumer protections was the results of November 8th.

On the other hand, I plan to sit back and laugh. Now there is absolutely no legitimate excuse for the radical right wing to get every little thing they want, and have been blaming the “libtards” for not getting.

I’m betting they’ll still blame the “libtards” for not getting what they want and getting screwed even harder at the cash register, pay window, and mail box (for bills).

Be careful what you wish for – you might get it.

Wyrm (profile) says:


So, was he a dingo all along?
Was he really trying to pass net neutrality rule out did he just push forward rules that he knew he would never enforce?
I mean, look at what happened since those rules were passed: from day one, it has been rule violation one after another, and all the FCC said each time was “wait and see”.
We’ve seen enough already, and now that the FCC is on the verge of its own extinction, ask he can say is “oops”?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow