Wireless

by Karl Bode


Filed Under:
fcc, net neutrality, streaming, tv, zero rating

Companies:
at&t, directv



What Net Neutrality? While The FCC Naps, AT&T Now Exempting DirecTV Content From Wireless Usage Caps

from the slippery-slopes dept

When the FCC crafted its new net neutrality rules, we noted that the agency's failure to ban "zero rating" (exempting your own company's content from usage caps) was going to be a problem. And lo and behold, with the FCC AWOL on the subject, companies are starting to take full advantage. Verizon and Comcast now exempt their own streaming video services from usage caps without penalty, while companies like T-Mobile and Sprint have launched new confusing and punitive data plans that throttle games, music and video content -- unless users pay a premium.

These were all concepts net neutrality rules were supposed to prevent. But because the FCC's rules didn't go quite far enough, we're effectively looking at rules that make net neutrality violations ok -- provided you're just a little bit creative about it.

Outside of the vague promise of an "information inquiry" that began last January, the FCC hasn't said much of anything as ISPs test the limits of the existing rules and pretty much finds that so far -- there really aren't any. Encouraged by the FCC's apathy on the subject, AT&T this week quietly began exempting DirecTV video content from its usage caps after buying the satellite TV provider last year for $69 billion. A quiet update to the DirecTV app indicates that the company is now pushing this as a new "data free TV" option":
AT&T is getting into the messy business of zero-rating, offering wireless data subscribers the opportunity to stream video from the DirecTV mobile app with no data costs at all. According to update notes from the latest version of the app released today, users can "stream DirecTV on your devices, anywhere — without using your data."

This promise was tested by Verge staff this morning, who were able to play DirecTV content on their mobile without any noticeable impact to their data allowance. However, the release notes for the app warn that there are restrictions. Under some unspecified circumstances users may still "incur data charges," says DirecTV, and any free video streaming is subject to "network management, including speed reduction."
Much like T-Mobile's Binge On efforts (which zero rate only the biggest video services) the idea of getting something for "free" sounds wonderful upon superficial inspection. At least until you realize that AT&T's decision to give its own content an unfair leg up in this fashion puts its competitors, like Netflix and Amazon, at a distinct disadvantage. That's why so many people had urged the FCC to follow India, Japan, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, The Netherlands, and Chile's approach to net neutrality rules and ban zero rating entirely.

The FCC didn't, and thanks to its failure, we now face a scenario where net neutrality can be trampled without repercussion -- and may even be celebrated by the press and public -- provided you just use the right shade of public relations paint.

And there's every indication AT&T's just getting started. This particular announcement (made on Apple product announcement day to capitalize on the tech media's distraction) was just AT&T dipping its toe into the zero rating water. The company plans to launch three different streaming services under the DirecTV brand later this year, and you can be fairly sure that AT&T intends to use zero rating to give all of them a distinct, and notably unfair, market advantage.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:05am

    How big of a hole does this punch in the popular "network congestion" argument? Will be wonderfull to see how they explain that the radio spectrum is full, except for direcTV of course!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:11am

      Re:

      Their border routers are congested, because they want to keep their competition off of their networks as much as possible.
      /conspiracy theory

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      Not to defend AT&T (I feel dirty just typing that), but this is the easiest argument to make.

      If DirecTV is on their own network, and not going across the internet, AT&T doesn't have to pay their ISP for that traffic.

      This is EXACTLY why we need true net neutrality, because it will always be cheaper to stream your own stuff and that naturally tends toward lack of competition.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        DigDuggery, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:35am

        Re: Re:

        Convert all Cellular, Satellite, Copper and Fiber based backbone and last mile communications equipment into common carrier, open to anyone to use for a small monthly fee that goes into the upgrade/upkeep funds.

        The upkeep and upgrade pool would be used to handle upgrading and extending the networks.

        Watch the race to zero by the 500 new "providers" that spawn from the opened common carrier equipment.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ltlw0lf (profile), 8 Sep 2016 @ 6:52am

        Re: Re:

        If DirecTV is on their own network, and not going across the internet, AT&T doesn't have to pay their ISP for that traffic.

        AT&T doesn't pay their ISP for traffic (unless things have really changed in that business,) AT&T likely has peering agreements with most, if not all, of their interconnections, and as a result, they don't pay to move traffic back and forth, and only pay for the care and feeding of the connection itself. AT&T might have to pay to upgrade connections or add more, but they don't pay for the traffic.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2016 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re:

        If DirecTV is on their own network, and not going across the internet, AT&T doesn't have to pay their ISP for that traffic.
        Netflix can give AT&T a free server to do the same thing. Other companies like Google have similar things.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    kallethen, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:08am

    Net neutrality?

    More like "net neutering"...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:22am

      Re: Net neutrality?

      Please explain.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        DigDuggery, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:30am

        Re: Re: Net neutrality?

        Oh, so sorry, you're a Dish Network customer, and you've watched 6 hours of programming through your internet connection.

        Here's our "screw you for not using directv fee" of 99.99 per kilobyte of transmitted data.

        Or, to more closely match how AT&T would put it.

        Oh, sorry there, if you'd used DirectTV, you'd have qualified for the $100.00 per month service discount.
        However, you chose Dish Network instead, so you don't get the discount.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    clemahieu (profile), 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:17am

    Bad plan to start with

    The same sequence happens every time we try to simulate free markets with government:

    1) law passes that sounds good
    2) people move on to next political topic
    3) industry comes in and modifies laws to suit their own needs
    4) people aren't paying attention and let it happen

    People have a limited political time budget and they **will not pay attention** after they move on to the next issue.

    Focusing on dismantling laws around industry restrictions I.e. Monopoly cable laying will yield far better results.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 7 Sep 2016 @ 2:26pm

      Re: Bad plan to start with

      The problem isn't so much the law as the fact that it didn't go far enough, and the enforcement of it has been completely lacking.

      The industry in question didn't have to modify anything since the FCC, in listening to their whining made the monumentally stupid decision to leave a gaping loophole for the companies to exploit by not entirely prohibiting zero-rating.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        morganwick (profile), 7 Sep 2016 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re: Bad plan to start with

        No see, you're hypnotized into relying on government as the solution to every problem when government always makes things worse in the long run. If we got rid of ALL regulation, everything would be hunky dory! /s

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      morganwick (profile), 7 Sep 2016 @ 2:45pm

      Re: Bad plan to start with

      It'd be nice if we didn't have to get *everyone* riled up to get good results, just the people who specifically pay attention to each issue all the time, like Techdirt readers for tech-related issues... but of course that's probably too utopian.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:46am

    Techdirt - Can you recommend a convenient template to file a formal FCC Complaint over zero rating? This is unacceptable behavior.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 7 Sep 2016 @ 11:47am

    Well who didn't see this coming?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2016 @ 1:54pm

    It's me again...

    I told you guys that the FCC's caused this to begin with... why keep expecting them to solve the problem?

    Keep loving that regulation... you will NEVER BE FREE!

    By your own hand you destroy yourselves!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 7 Sep 2016 @ 2:27pm

      Re: It's me again...

      As opposed to what? If the FCC can't do it because they were part of the problem, then what's your solution to deal with it that doesn't involve them?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2016 @ 2:42pm

        Re: Re: It's me again...

        Oh he doesn't have a real solution. Just some libertarian horseshit about the free market he picked up off a the back of a soda bottle.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Whatever (profile), 7 Sep 2016 @ 5:36pm

    Karl, you need to get over it and understand a simple rule:

    Net Neutrality does not apply to content delivered internal to a given ISPs network, only to the interconnections.

    When you understand where the line is drawn and where stuff is measured, you will understand why the FCC isn't napping, they are just staying in their jurisdiction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 8 Sep 2016 @ 11:11am

      Re:

      Whatever, you need to get over it and understand a simple rule: this is unfair competition.

      When you understand the interconnections were already paid for and charging for access is charging twice for the same thing you'll understand how bad it is. Oh, except you don't want to understand. Never mind then.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 9 Sep 2016 @ 11:02am

      Re:

      Net Neutrality does not apply to content delivered internal to a given ISPs network, only to the interconnections.
      This is not true.

      Net Neutrality, in its purest form, means that the network in question does not know or care what the data traveling over it is, or where that data comes from or is going to; all the network cares about is how to most efficiently get the data to the place where it exits that network, on its way to whatever its final destination may be. The next hop may be another network, or it may be the machine which is the final destination; again, a neutral network neither knows nor cares which.

      If the ISP is checking the in-flight data enough to be able to tell whether or not it is from an internal source, the ISP is already violating the principle that the network should be neutral.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hyronemus Cohort, 8 Sep 2016 @ 9:51am

    Gard Bless 'merica

    American technical wisdom created the Internet, American capitalist 'wisdom' will destroy the Internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Status (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:32pm

    AT&T doesn't pay

    AT&T doesn't pay their ISP for traffic unless things have really changed in that business.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.