3 ms·
The actual letter from the likely future commissioner: > STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI > On the FCC’s Midnight Regulation of Free Data > WASHINGTON,
by LeifCarrotson 10y ago
The actual letter from the likely future commissioner:
> STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
> On the FCC’s Midnight Regulation of Free Data
> WASHINGTON, January 11, 2017.—It is disappointing that the FCC’s current leadership has yet again chosen to spend its last days in office the same way it spent the last few years—cutting corners on process, keeping fellow Commissioners in the dark, and pursuing partisan, political agendas that only harm investment and innovation.
> This time the midnight regulations come in the form of a Bureau-level report casting doubt on the legality of free data offerings—offerings that are popular among consumers precisely because they allow more access to online music, videos, and other content free of charge. This report, which I only saw after the FCC released the document, does not reflect the views of the majority of Commissioners. Fortunately, I am confident that this latest regulatory spasm will not have any impact on the Commission’s policymaking or enforcement activities following next week’s inauguration.
> It was my hope—as I have consistently expressed to my colleagues—that we could spend the remaining days of this Administration working together with bipartisan comity to ensure a smooth transition. It is sad that the outgoing leadership of the agency has chosen a different path.
> Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai: (202) 418-2000
> Twitter: @AjitPaiFCC
> https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai
From https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342990A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342990A1.d.... Note the .docx (not .html or even .pdf) suffix on that link. Note the .docx suffix and weep.
Contrast this with Tom Wheeler's report from yesterday: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342982A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017... (.pdf, which your browser probably handles well) which, starting on page 15, analyzes existing wireless carrier zero-rating plans and finds issue with AT&T's Sponsored Data zero-rating its own DirectTV service, suggesting that "these sponsored data offerings may harm consumers and competition by unreasonably discriminating in favor of downstream providers owned or affiliated with the network providers."
Tom, we're going to miss you.
- acomjean 10y agoCommissioner Pai seems to have rebranded "Zero-Rated" content as "free data offerings", but its not really free, you already are a paying customer. Also really political wording: "popular among consumers precisely because they allow more access to online music, videos, and other content free of charge" instead of the more accurate "access to our chosen providers online music... without counting against your data cap" ok t-mobile is the one company that doesn't charge to be a "chosen provider", but the others. This doesn't bode well..
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoIt's both better and worse than that. The FCC has no problem with "zero rating" or "sponsored data" per se. Instead of paying Netflix $8/mo to stream content from their servers to peering network providers, and then paying AT&T a marginal $4/mo to take that data from the peering servers to their towers and eventually to your phone, you could pay Netflix $12/mo and have them pay $4/mo to AT&T on your behalf. Annoying and problematic for sure - you can bet that some sites like fcc.gov, for example, are unlikely to pay AT&T for sponsored data, that this makes it more difficult for upstarts, and that this allows AT&T to offer less general-purpose data and more control over bandwidth. But it could in theory be done fairly. Nonetheless, the clear and present issue is that DirectTV, owned by AT&T, is getting this "sponsored data" class for free. If DirectTV were offered the same deal as Netflix, who were offered the same deal as fcc.gov and news.ycombinator.com, that would be one thing. But they're not. And that's discrimination.