- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
AT&T & Verizon Facing FCC Scrutiny After Exempting Their Own Apps From Data Cap
Posted on 12/2/16 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 12/2/16 at 6:13 pm
quote:
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.
"We find that those responses fail to alleviate the serious concerns expressed in our November 9 letter regarding the potential anti-competitive impacts of a wholesale Sponsored Data program for zero-rated mobile video services. Indeed, your submission tends to confirm our initial view that the Sponsored Data program strongly favors AT&T's own video offerings while unreasonably discriminating against unaffiliated edge providers and limiting their ability to offer competing video services to AT&T's broadband subscribers on a level playing field."
LINK
4
Posted on 12/2/16 at 6:39 pm to Street Hawk
Good. Net Neutrality needs to be constantly protected.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 12/2/16 at 6:47 pm to Street Hawk
One of the interesting things about Trump is that I have read reports that he's not a proponent of net neutrality, but not sure of that.
Also, Mark Cuban is not a proponent of net nuetrality and is also a proponent of the FCC aproving of the pending merger between AT&T and Time Warner, which I do know Trump is against.
You really should visit this site https://www.battleforthenet.com/ and scroll down to send a message to your senators and representatives in congress. They are considering legislation (HR2666) that would prohibit the FCC from regulating broadband rates, meaning, once AT&T gobbles up Time Warner, then Verizon gobbles up Comcast, there will be nothing stopping them from gouging the consumers for all they can.
Also, Mark Cuban is not a proponent of net nuetrality and is also a proponent of the FCC aproving of the pending merger between AT&T and Time Warner, which I do know Trump is against.
You really should visit this site https://www.battleforthenet.com/ and scroll down to send a message to your senators and representatives in congress. They are considering legislation (HR2666) that would prohibit the FCC from regulating broadband rates, meaning, once AT&T gobbles up Time Warner, then Verizon gobbles up Comcast, there will be nothing stopping them from gouging the consumers for all they can.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:08 pm to HubbaBubba
These companies need to start being penalized for net neutrality violations until they get the memo.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:02 pm to WavinWilly
Net Neutrality is so fricking stupid.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:05 pm to knight_ryder
Any chance that unlimited goes away for DTV/ATT customers because of this?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:07 pm to knight_ryder
quote:
Net Neutrality is a good start but still doesn't go far enough and needs to get more teeth in order to stop shite like this from happening in the future
FIFY
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:13 pm to Uncle JackD
quote:
Any chance that unlimited goes away for DTV/ATT customers because of this?
Yep. I swear to god if this happens I'm going to lose my shite. Net Neutrality is so dumb.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:23 pm to knight_ryder
quote:
quote:Any chance that unlimited goes away for DTV/ATT customers because of this? Yep. I swear to god if this happens I'm going to lose my shite. Net Neutrality is so dumb.
People who support this think government control is a good thing until government controls it in a way that doesn't support their narrative.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:30 pm to GurleyGirl
Verizon has exclusive access to NFL games. Am I jealous? Yes. Do I care? No. Competition is good for consumers.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:47 pm to knight_ryder
I suppose in your worldview, if AT&T owned the Internet, owned all cable and satellite services, as well as phone service, we'd all be so much better off, right?
The point is, AT&T is using a practice that prevents fair competition. As an ISP, they cannot be allowed to run business practices that stifle competition and cost non-AT&T customers more because they aren't using AT&T services. You might like that as a AT&T customer, but if you're a non-AT&T customer, that's an unfair business practice that has a negative effect on your expenditures and experience.
The point is, AT&T is using a practice that prevents fair competition. As an ISP, they cannot be allowed to run business practices that stifle competition and cost non-AT&T customers more because they aren't using AT&T services. You might like that as a AT&T customer, but if you're a non-AT&T customer, that's an unfair business practice that has a negative effect on your expenditures and experience.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:04 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
You might like that as a AT&T customer, but if you're a non-AT&T customer, that's an unfair business practice that has a negative effect on your expenditures and experience.
It's not unfair. So I have to pay for streaming DIrectTV now? frick that. Every major carrier has their own perks. It's called competition.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 4:26 pm to knight_ryder
quote:Had ha! See? You just affirmed exactly what I said. If you're an AT&T customer, you love it and so does AT&T because now they have a pitch that says, "Oh? So you want streaming television Internet service from Vue or Sling but don't want to pay for the data? Use our service instead and we'll forget those pesky charges!"
It's not unfair. So I have to pay for streaming DIrectTV now? frick that. Every major carrier has their own perks. It's called competition.
That is a big, big problem and you're too blindly led by your pocketbook and personal greed to see how this is a business practice, as an ISP, that AT&T needs to be stopped from doing. They can't say, "well... those other streaming companies can pay the same fee that DirecTV pays us and give their customers free data" when they own DirecTV and the fee just goes from their right hand to their left hand. That's the very definition of an unfair trade practice and they should be heavily sanctioned for it.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 6:13 pm to knight_ryder
quote:sucks.... I was going to switch to AT&T this week for that reason alone
Yep. I swear to god if this happens I'm going to lose my shite. Net Neutrality is so dumb.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:30 pm to Uncle JackD
quote:You could go with T-Mobile. They have an all-you-can-eat data plan. I have both an AT&T phone for business and a T-Mobile phone for personal. T-Mobile has some good features such as free wi-fi and texting on airplanes, plus service in Mexico and the Caribbean at no extra charge.
sucks.... I was going to switch to AT&T this week for that reason alone
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:42 pm to Uncle JackD
quote:
sucks.... I was going to switch to AT&T this week for that reason alone
It isn't set in stone. ATT isn't all that bad. I would make the switch.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 7:54 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
That's the very definition of an unfair trade practice and they should be heavily sanctioned for it.
That is not the definition of unfair trade practice and that you think so makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about.
Giving an incentive to purchase one product if you purchase another product has been and goes on every day and is not considered unfair trade practice. You get a discount on your auto and home insurance if you buy them from the same company. There is the car wash down the street that gives you a free vacuum after going through their car wash. That's not all the sudden anti-competitive to all the stand alone car vacuums at all the gas stations in the city. The car wash invested money in infrastructure to give an incentive the use of their service. My company builds telecommunications equipment for the ATT's, Verizons, sprints, etc of the world. There is a 100% chance that that the post you see on your screen is because a piece of equipment I designed. My company was actually purchased by another larger company because our products complimented each other. The now larger company can sell the two pieces of equipemt bundled together at a better price than when we were sold independently. That's what ATT did when buying DirecTV trying to give everyone an incentive to buy both of their services. The definition of tied selling which is an unfair business practice is saying you can't get service A without buying Service B. If ATT said "You can only get DirecTV now if you have ATT service" then yes that is illegal.
I'm for net neutrality in the sense that I do not want service providers to restrict my access to information in the internet. Lets say I pay for 10gb of data I should be able to do anything I want with that 10gb of data. I don't want my service provider prioritizing the network traffic to their "preferred" sights. So if I send a network request to ESPN it should be treated the same as a network request to pirate bay. I can do anything I want with that data right now even illegal stuff if that was what I wanted to do.
Offering incentives to use their products, that IMHO isn't against net neutrality. Maybe you can argue it is a possible first step towards a slippery slope? Personally I think we are still several steps away from that slope and I'm fine with the zero-rated data. And for the record I am not a ATT or DirecTV subscriber.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 9:41 am to DeoreDX
quote:
Giving an incentive to purchase one product if you purchase another product has been and goes on every day and is not considered unfair trade practice. You get a discount on your auto and home insurance if you buy them from the same company. There is the car wash down the street that gives you a free vacuum after going through their car wash. That's not all the sudden anti-competitive to all the stand alone car vacuums at all the gas stations in the city. The car wash invested money in infrastructure to give an incentive the use of their service. My company builds telecommunications equipment for the ATT's, Verizons, sprints, etc of the world. There is a 100% chance that that the post you see on your screen is because a piece of equipment I designed. My company was actually purchased by another larger company because our products complimented each other. The now larger company can sell the two pieces of equipemt bundled together at a better price than when we were sold independently. That's what ATT did when buying DirecTV trying to give everyone an incentive to buy both of their services. The definition of tied selling which is an unfair business practice is saying you can't get service A without buying Service B. If ATT said "You can only get DirecTV now if you have ATT service" then yes that is illegal.
I'm for net neutrality in the sense that I do not want service providers to restrict my access to information in the internet. Lets say I pay for 10gb of data I should be able to do anything I want with that 10gb of data. I don't want my service provider prioritizing the network traffic to their "preferred" sights. So if I send a network request to ESPN it should be treated the same as a network request to pirate bay. I can do anything I want with that data right now even illegal stuff if that was what I wanted to do.
Absolutely none of that has anything to do with the issue.
quote:
I'm fine with the zero-rated data.
This is the only thing in your post I agree with.
The problem is that DirecTV Now is a competitor to other streaming services that exist now, plus soon to be other services from Google and Hulu. AT&T is showing favorable treatment to it's own offering as a company through its ISP service. That is against net-neutrality law. As written, the law requires them to treat both equally. They are trying to weasel out of that by saying, "but we DO charge DirecTV Now for the cost of the zero-rated data", but this is net zero sum for them as it just shifts monies from one ledger to another in the same company. THAT is an unfair business practice.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 4:12 pm to DeoreDX
quote:
Offering incentives to use their products, that IMHO isn't against net neutrality.
Sure it is. It hurts competition by making services like Vue and Sling less viable. It also makes it much less likely that any new services will be able to come along and compete.
The whole datacap things is total bullshite to begin with and you could argue also goes against Net Neutrality.
This post was edited on 12/4/16 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 7:11 pm to Street Hawk
It is unfair for AT&T to exempt AT&T apps from AT&T charges?
Businesses giving free shite to their customers is bad. . .
Businesses giving free shite to their customers is bad. . .
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News