13 ms·

AT&T, Time Warner, and the Need for Neutrality

173 points by thecosas 8y ago

CodeSheikh 8y ago
What might happen is AT&T is going to show certain content to its cellular customers that otherwise it would have to pay licensing fees to TW. For example live games, certain movies. And not charge any data rates for those streams only. They are going to package all of this as another tier of data plans etc. Think of it as as Tmobile+Netflix promotion but at a whole new level.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  Which I agree is a problem but at face value average consumer probably won’t see this as a problem.
niftich 8y ago
Good post; a lot to unpack. This administration's objections to the AT&T/TWC merger was probably rooted in television because the administration's opinions about net neutrality are rather well-known; it's doubtful they'd see the eventual outcome, if they even envisioned it, as problematic or anticompetitive -- and that's just the charitable reading that omits the Predient's own upset over the future of CNN, which too reinforces approaching the subject with a television lens. That being said, it is somewhat ironic that zero-rating was never considered outright problematic by Wheeler's FCC [1] (or the EFF [2]) and the FCC resolved to investigate zero-rating practices on a case-by-case basis. They let some of them fly, but admonished several others, even in the last few days of Wheeler's term [3]. Then, Pai predictably stopped all such investigations when he took office [2]. In this favorable regulatory climate, it's no wonder that zero-rating looks like a valuable tool that businesses can leverage to make their offerings seem more attractive versus their competitors, making past predictions about a future of vertically-integrated content silos and delivery networks [4][5][6][7][8] seem a bit less like quackery. As an added complication, it is much more difficult to explain to laypeople why zero-rating is problematic, than other topics that can fall under the wider umbrella of 'net neutrality'. Zero-rating is perhaps the most popular facet of delivery that doesn't adhere to net neutrality, attracting a wide range of supporters [9], including many that support missions that are helped or enabled by no-cost access to information. Once zero-rating is commonplace, efforts to undo it will be more politically challenging than the previous net neutrality debate. [1] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342987A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/fcc-abandons-zero-rating-investigation-and-moves-backward-net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/fcc-abandons-zero-rati... [3] https://www.eff.org/files/2017/02/09/fcc-zerorating.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2017/02/09/fcc-zerorating.pdf [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17305508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17305508 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12350087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12350087 [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14229742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14229742 [7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15092525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15092525 [8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13557318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13557318 [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_again...
- shmerl 8y ago
  > Once zero-rating is commonplace, efforts to undo it will be more politically challenging than the previous net neutrality debate. Only while anti-trust remains as crippled as it is now. In practice zero rating kind of violations should be blasted with classic anti-trust, not with specially crafted net neutrality rules. So may be fixing anti-trust should be a priority. To be clear, I'm in support of strict net neutrality rules, but they are often a fix for a symptom, while the root cause is actually anti-competitive abuse that runs amok because anti-trust is doing nothing.
KaiserPro 8y ago
I think this article misses the point somewhat. There is nothing wrong with a company providing all these services, so long as they are not able to abuse their position. Now, net neutrality is _a_ not very effective way of stopping dominance. But, its almost not what you think or want it to be. What you actually want is competition, so that when a company does something stupid (ie slow netflix to a crawl) you can up sticks and move to a better service. (no I don't mean a duopoly) Now, you've just seen me say that NN isn't what you want. Let me unpack that rather controversial statement. Firstly NN is the equal treatment of _all_ traffic regardless of source, protocol or destination. You really don't want that, as it means that real time stuff will get hampered by bulk traffic, and bulk traffic knobs (you know the people that are more than willing to spend $25 a month on a torrent box, $500 on local storage each quarter, but not pay for content.) Will get a free pass. On the flip side, it means offers like http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge/shows http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge/shows (watching netflix doesn't count towards your mobile internet cap) can't happen. Now, judging by whats happening to Three, this is what customers actually want. So, what America needs is bulk transit ripped away from the big three. Where there is ISP dominance in one area, Regulated wholesale prices, allowing virtual operators to provide internet using rented last mile infrastructure. This is not perfect, as unless you fully strip those providing last mile infrastructure from those providing ISP functions, there will be a reluctance to roll out new technologies in less profitable areas.
- niftich 8y ago
  The classic way of leveraging private investment in some kind of capacity-carrying infrastructure for public good is to rule it a common carrier [1]. All of this 'Title II'/'net neutrality' spat of the last few years is about how one regulator, the FCC, interprets various laws (including the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications act of 1996) about where ISPs fall [2], court cases and ruling that have been brought in its wake [3], the FCC's change in approach in response to those court cases [4], and a bunch of complicating factors about whether the FCC or the FTC is the appropriate regulatory body that decides the exact regulatory regime. So, without further lawmaking, that ship has sailed. So if we can't adopt some rule that would treat privately-owned cables, let's say on the last mile, as common carriers, what are some other options? Deny further vertical mergers affecting telecom infrastructure? This doesn't solve the current entrenchment. Let localities take the issue into their own hands and build out publicly-owned networks that would support open access for providers running on top? This is a sensible idea, that's currently difficult to pursue in almost half of the states [5], and most legislative efforts to make this difficult have come from Republican lawmakers [6][7], despite citizens of all political leanings in favor of localities being allowed to do this [8][9]. [1] https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a-history-of-common-carrier-laws-1884-2018-2b592f22ed2e https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... [4] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-v... [5] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-by-state/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... [6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... [7] https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-aa7c-42fe-be4d-11b0f9527db0/12.11.15-letter-to-fcc-chairman-wheeler-on-municipal-broadband-final.pdf https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-... [8] https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhelming-support-local-authority https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhel... [9] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-have-mixed-views-on-policies-encouraging-broadband-adoption/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-ha...
lend000 8y ago
There is a lot wrong with internet/general utility regulation in the US, but I think it's mostly the last-mile cable logistics which are preventing competition in heavily populated areas, and that results in localized monopolies or duopolies. This piece addresses the philosophy of the potential issues better than some, but this net neutrality hysteria in general seems to me like a lot of well intentioned folks are trying to solve a problem which does not exist, despite having had decades to develop (while the associated technology is still rapidly transforming, the Internet is no longer such an immature, radical new thing). Adding controversial regulations to the most innovative technology sector in the US to solve a problem which might develop (and could in all likelihood be undone very quickly and without significant infrastructure changes, were this to begin to develop into a problem) seems ridiculous to me. I imagine there are many better trees to bark up. But to entertain the idea, of the three final 'key principles' the author lists, the first two are reasonable and unlikely to break things (if it was possible for Congress to write a one-page bill that contains only the language necessary to implement these rules, and nothing else). The third one is a slap in the face of innovation and new services in my eyes, although the author acknowledges it may be extreme. The only sweeping public policy that I could support to address a problem in this space would be for one which already DOES exist: the lack of competition in the ISP space for the last mile. A possible public solution could include cities implementing a basic cabling system that cover all residences in urban areas (independent from any other private cables, which would likely be superior) that any ISP can connect to and serve via a city hub (much closer to the backbone, with an access point being outside the urban area, allowing many competitors to build infrastructure around it).
- pitaj 8y ago
  A lot of people look at ISPs and call them a natural monopoly because if they weren't, we would have redundant last mile infrastructure. Who cares if last mile infrastructure is redundant? Redundancy is good most other places, and having more than one fiber line running past my house doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. Even if it was definitively inefficient, it would still be better for consumers than any monopoly on such infrastructure, regulated or not. People need to just let ISPs run whatever cables they want wherever they want, whether that be attaching them to overhead power lines or under ground. We should have competition at every stage of the internet, from backbone to search engines to last mile connectivity. Much like the debate around affordable housing, the answer is to "let them build!" There are companies like Google/Alphabet willing to build out infrastructure if only they were allowed.
forcer 8y ago
zero rating is like Google putting its own content (or content of their partners) to the top of search results. both are legal and both are harming competition
- jon_richards 8y ago
  Didn't they get in trouble doing this with their amazon competitor? I remember for a while searching for things would give me options to buy them from google.
exabrial 8y ago
Stop. Being. Fatalistic. FFS. You are not helping, you are making things worse. No, we do not NEED Net Neutrality. The internet can/has/will survived for the short ~2ish years of really weak NN that was easily circumnavigable by corporate lawyers. The last form of NN we had allows Comcasts of the USA to legalize their local monopolies. The solution is multifaceted. First, if we want to break free of the stranglehold, we need to lower the barrier of entry into the market for new ISPs, not raise it. Second, the FTC needs to examine the practice of "up to 50mbps" advertising and "internet service" vs "information service". Strict definitions of these would help us along. Third, vague definitions of "service abusers" needs to be eliminated or defined. If they are selling you "unlimited internet", then there is in fact, no limit. If you hit a limit by an ISP, they need to be reported in your bill when and where the policy violation took place, plus allow for a dispute process. Finally, there are a lot more dirty things ISPs are doing, like Verizon injecting HTTP headers that identify an account to advertisers. The 2015 NN laws were too weak to accomplish what they sought out to do. I'm happy they're gone so we can possibly get some effective regulations in.
- TheGRS 8y ago
  Is there a reason to believe that getting rid of a regulation actually fosters in better regulations? I don't think I follow that logic.
  - btilly 8y ago
    Regulations tend to follow abuse. The more egregious the abuse, the stronger the regulation. Therefore a strong regulation can follow deregulation. Of course the opposite can happen. Deregulation can shift the Overton window to the point where regulations that once seemed reasonable are off the table. As an example, even most of the people complaining about growing inequality between rich and poor aren't openly suggesting a return to pre-Reagan top tax rates of 70%.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Totally agree. Net neutrality would prevent comcast from blocking the traffic of a new internet provider. That post is like a clever but evil posting from a corporate pr flack for comcast. net neutrality should help new internet providers.

173 points by thecosas 8y ago

What might happen is AT&T is going to show certain content to its cellular customers that otherwise it would have to pay licensing fees to TW. For example live games, certain movies. And not charge any data rates for those streams only. They are going to package all of this as another tier of data plans etc. Think of it as as Tmobile+Netflix promotion but at a whole new level.

notyourwork 8y ago
Which I agree is a problem but at face value average consumer probably won’t see this as a problem.

niftich 8y ago

Good post; a lot to unpack. This administration's objections to the AT&T/TWC merger was probably rooted in television because the administration's opinions about net neutrality are rather well-known; it's doubtful they'd see the eventual outcome, if they even envisioned it, as problematic or anticompetitive -- and that's just the charitable reading that omits the Predient's own upset over the future of CNN, which too reinforces approaching the subject with a television lens. That being said, it is somewhat ironic that zero-rating was never considered outright problematic by Wheeler's FCC [1] (or the EFF [2]) and the FCC resolved to investigate zero-rating practices on a case-by-case basis. They let some of them fly, but admonished several others, even in the last few days of Wheeler's term [3]. Then, Pai predictably stopped all such investigations when he took office [2]. In this favorable regulatory climate, it's no wonder that zero-rating looks like a valuable tool that businesses can leverage to make their offerings seem more attractive versus their competitors, making past predictions about a future of vertically-integrated content silos and delivery networks [4][5][6][7][8] seem a bit less like quackery. As an added complication, it is much more difficult to explain to laypeople why zero-rating is problematic, than other topics that can fall under the wider umbrella of 'net neutrality'. Zero-rating is perhaps the most popular facet of delivery that doesn't adhere to net neutrality, attracting a wide range of supporters [9], including many that support missions that are helped or enabled by no-cost access to information. Once zero-rating is commonplace, efforts to undo it will be more politically challenging than the previous net neutrality debate. [1] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342987A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/fcc-abandons-zero-rating-investigation-and-moves-backward-net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/fcc-abandons-zero-rati... [3] https://www.eff.org/files/2017/02/09/fcc-zerorating.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2017/02/09/fcc-zerorating.pdf [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17305508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17305508 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12350087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12350087 [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14229742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14229742 [7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15092525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15092525 [8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13557318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13557318 [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_again...

shmerl 8y ago
> Once zero-rating is commonplace, efforts to undo it will be more politically challenging than the previous net neutrality debate. Only while anti-trust remains as crippled as it is now. In practice zero rating kind of violations should be blasted with classic anti-trust, not with specially crafted net neutrality rules. So may be fixing anti-trust should be a priority. To be clear, I'm in support of strict net neutrality rules, but they are often a fix for a symptom, while the root cause is actually anti-competitive abuse that runs amok because anti-trust is doing nothing.

KaiserPro 8y ago

I think this article misses the point somewhat. There is nothing wrong with a company providing all these services, so long as they are not able to abuse their position. Now, net neutrality is _a_ not very effective way of stopping dominance. But, its almost not what you think or want it to be. What you actually want is competition, so that when a company does something stupid (ie slow netflix to a crawl) you can up sticks and move to a better service. (no I don't mean a duopoly) Now, you've just seen me say that NN isn't what you want. Let me unpack that rather controversial statement. Firstly NN is the equal treatment of _all_ traffic regardless of source, protocol or destination. You really don't want that, as it means that real time stuff will get hampered by bulk traffic, and bulk traffic knobs (you know the people that are more than willing to spend $25 a month on a torrent box, $500 on local storage each quarter, but not pay for content.) Will get a free pass. On the flip side, it means offers like http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge/shows http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge/shows (watching netflix doesn't count towards your mobile internet cap) can't happen. Now, judging by whats happening to Three, this is what customers actually want. So, what America needs is bulk transit ripped away from the big three. Where there is ISP dominance in one area, Regulated wholesale prices, allowing virtual operators to provide internet using rented last mile infrastructure. This is not perfect, as unless you fully strip those providing last mile infrastructure from those providing ISP functions, there will be a reluctance to roll out new technologies in less profitable areas.

niftich 8y ago
The classic way of leveraging private investment in some kind of capacity-carrying infrastructure for public good is to rule it a common carrier [1]. All of this 'Title II'/'net neutrality' spat of the last few years is about how one regulator, the FCC, interprets various laws (including the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications act of 1996) about where ISPs fall [2], court cases and ruling that have been brought in its wake [3], the FCC's change in approach in response to those court cases [4], and a bunch of complicating factors about whether the FCC or the FTC is the appropriate regulatory body that decides the exact regulatory regime. So, without further lawmaking, that ship has sailed. So if we can't adopt some rule that would treat privately-owned cables, let's say on the last mile, as common carriers, what are some other options? Deny further vertical mergers affecting telecom infrastructure? This doesn't solve the current entrenchment. Let localities take the issue into their own hands and build out publicly-owned networks that would support open access for providers running on top? This is a sensible idea, that's currently difficult to pursue in almost half of the states [5], and most legislative efforts to make this difficult have come from Republican lawmakers [6][7], despite citizens of all political leanings in favor of localities being allowed to do this [8][9]. [1] https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a-history-of-common-carrier-laws-1884-2018-2b592f22ed2e https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... [4] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-v... [5] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-by-state/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... [6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... [7] https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-aa7c-42fe-be4d-11b0f9527db0/12.11.15-letter-to-fcc-chairman-wheeler-on-municipal-broadband-final.pdf https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-... [8] https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhelming-support-local-authority https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhel... [9] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-have-mixed-views-on-policies-encouraging-broadband-adoption/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-ha...

lend000 8y ago

There is a lot wrong with internet/general utility regulation in the US, but I think it's mostly the last-mile cable logistics which are preventing competition in heavily populated areas, and that results in localized monopolies or duopolies. This piece addresses the philosophy of the potential issues better than some, but this net neutrality hysteria in general seems to me like a lot of well intentioned folks are trying to solve a problem which does not exist, despite having had decades to develop (while the associated technology is still rapidly transforming, the Internet is no longer such an immature, radical new thing). Adding controversial regulations to the most innovative technology sector in the US to solve a problem which might develop (and could in all likelihood be undone very quickly and without significant infrastructure changes, were this to begin to develop into a problem) seems ridiculous to me. I imagine there are many better trees to bark up. But to entertain the idea, of the three final 'key principles' the author lists, the first two are reasonable and unlikely to break things (if it was possible for Congress to write a one-page bill that contains only the language necessary to implement these rules, and nothing else). The third one is a slap in the face of innovation and new services in my eyes, although the author acknowledges it may be extreme. The only sweeping public policy that I could support to address a problem in this space would be for one which already DOES exist: the lack of competition in the ISP space for the last mile. A possible public solution could include cities implementing a basic cabling system that cover all residences in urban areas (independent from any other private cables, which would likely be superior) that any ISP can connect to and serve via a city hub (much closer to the backbone, with an access point being outside the urban area, allowing many competitors to build infrastructure around it).

pitaj 8y ago
A lot of people look at ISPs and call them a natural monopoly because if they weren't, we would have redundant last mile infrastructure. Who cares if last mile infrastructure is redundant? Redundancy is good most other places, and having more than one fiber line running past my house doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. Even if it was definitively inefficient, it would still be better for consumers than any monopoly on such infrastructure, regulated or not. People need to just let ISPs run whatever cables they want wherever they want, whether that be attaching them to overhead power lines or under ground. We should have competition at every stage of the internet, from backbone to search engines to last mile connectivity. Much like the debate around affordable housing, the answer is to "let them build!" There are companies like Google/Alphabet willing to build out infrastructure if only they were allowed.

forcer 8y ago

zero rating is like Google putting its own content (or content of their partners) to the top of search results. both are legal and both are harming competition

jon_richards 8y ago
Didn't they get in trouble doing this with their amazon competitor? I remember for a while searching for things would give me options to buy them from google.

exabrial 8y ago

Stop. Being. Fatalistic. FFS. You are not helping, you are making things worse. No, we do not NEED Net Neutrality. The internet can/has/will survived for the short ~2ish years of really weak NN that was easily circumnavigable by corporate lawyers. The last form of NN we had allows Comcasts of the USA to legalize their local monopolies. The solution is multifaceted. First, if we want to break free of the stranglehold, we need to lower the barrier of entry into the market for new ISPs, not raise it. Second, the FTC needs to examine the practice of "up to 50mbps" advertising and "internet service" vs "information service". Strict definitions of these would help us along. Third, vague definitions of "service abusers" needs to be eliminated or defined. If they are selling you "unlimited internet", then there is in fact, no limit. If you hit a limit by an ISP, they need to be reported in your bill when and where the policy violation took place, plus allow for a dispute process. Finally, there are a lot more dirty things ISPs are doing, like Verizon injecting HTTP headers that identify an account to advertisers. The 2015 NN laws were too weak to accomplish what they sought out to do. I'm happy they're gone so we can possibly get some effective regulations in.

TheGRS 8y ago
Is there a reason to believe that getting rid of a regulation actually fosters in better regulations? I don't think I follow that logic.
- btilly 8y ago
  Regulations tend to follow abuse. The more egregious the abuse, the stronger the regulation. Therefore a strong regulation can follow deregulation. Of course the opposite can happen. Deregulation can shift the Overton window to the point where regulations that once seemed reasonable are off the table. As an example, even most of the people complaining about growing inequality between rich and poor aren't openly suggesting a return to pre-Reagan top tax rates of 70%.
- Latteland 8y ago
  Totally agree. Net neutrality would prevent comcast from blocking the traffic of a new internet provider. That post is like a clever but evil posting from a corporate pr flack for comcast. net neutrality should help new internet providers.