In addition to being filled with loopholes and allowing ample gatekeeper pay to play opportunities for ISPs, a source tells Fierce Wireless that the new net neutrality rules being circulated at the FCC also won't apply to wireless networks. The old rules also largely excluded wireless, in large part because the rule's framework was based on draft proposals submitted to the FCC by Google, AT&T and Verizon.
Companies like AT&T have long dreamed of "creative" pricing opportunities like AT&T's Sponsored Data, which lets wealthier companies (like ESPN) pay to have their traffic excluded from user usage caps, giving them a leg up over smaller companies that can't afford AT&T's toll.
Back in January Wheeler claimed the FCC would take a wait and see approach to these new proposals, suggesting he didn't largely see any problem. Critics contend that AT&T's proposal is already obviously anti-competitive out of the gate, given it involves erecting entirely new unnecessary tolls that could make it harder for smaller companies and startups to compete with larger companies.
From pay to play to prioritization schemes, there's no limit of ideas that have bounced around executive boardrooms, but may have been held back due to fear of regulatory retaliation. By excluding wireless entirely, the FCC's giving those ambitions a very bright green light.
wh is rigged now - it's making me reset my password cause of heartbleed whatever - and i still didn't get the reset email yet - LOL - all this for a stupid petition site. reminds me of the whole voter fraud issue last election that kept hundreds of thousands from voting to prevent maybe one actual recorded fraud attempt.
EDIT: OK, 10min later got PW reset link and signed your petition - yay
wh is rigged now - it's making me reset my password cause of heartbleed whatever - and i still didn't get the reset email yet - LOL - all this for a stupid petition site. reminds me of the whole voter fraud issue last election that kept hundreds of thousands from voting to prevent maybe one actual recorded fraud attempt.
EDIT: OK, 10min later got PW reset link and signed your petition - yay
It's actually not my petition but thanks for signing.
Anyway there has been about 1500 more people signing since I posted the link, and probably everyone of them had to do the password reset ... so that's why the email receipt was slow.
... Bought and paid for by Comcast, ATT, Verizon ET al.
The conflict of interests here is glaringly obvious. Former cable lobbyist turned FCC commissioner proposes new rules legitimizing new revenue sources for the cable/ISP industry? What a novel thought.
It's asinine.
Ed Whitacre's dream come true.
If these actually stand, everyone better get ready for the slow lane! Cause it's coming.
I left a negative comment similar to what's above on Chairman Wheelers blog. When I saved it, it said it was "waiting moderation." I came back a little later and it was gone.
I left another comment thanking Wheeler for encouraging a "free and open discussion of the merits" of his proposed rules, but later came back to find that that comment had also been 86ed.
Apparently the FCC website only wants positive feedback...
I posted your experience about them deleting comments from their blog to their facebook page. We'll see if they delete it from there too. Hopefully the FB system won't let them do that.
Companies like AT&T have long dreamed of "creative" pricing opportunities like AT&T's Sponsored Data, which lets wealthier companies (like ESPN) pay to have their traffic excluded from user usage caps, giving them a leg up over smaller companies that can't afford AT&T's toll.
please tell me this start up that offers the same content as ESPN that will be hurt? ESPN has exclusive rights to MNF and lots of college football and other sports so there isn't a start up that could offer that same content.
I suspect this "data free" content will be limited to smartphones perhaps tablets anyway. I doubt I'd be able to use my data contention to watch ESPN on an actual TV. Also I doubt some guy in a garage is working on the next Netflix. Considering the cost of such an endeavor not to mention the difficulty of even getting content owners to offer their content for sale for streaming in the first place( just ask Netflix )
All that being said considering the ignorance of the average person when it comes to technology and not knowing a MB from a GB, having the same people figure out which apps are "data free" and which are going to go against their caps, I see mass confusion and many angry people when they get their bills. I also see severe slowdowns during popular events. If one can get on the network at all. So in my opinion "sponsored data" is a clusterf--k anyway.
I think the plan is to make everything annoyingly slow by default, and caps won't matter, as you'd never be able to hit them.
Those corporate giants willing and able to fork over tons of cash can expect to see their product delivered much faster. This is the data that won't be added to the customer's cap.
I don't see the customer ever having to directly pay for these special apps. What will most likely happen is that there will be something similar to the authentication system abused now. To get an ESPN app at a super speedy, non-cap-impacting format, you'll have to log in with your TV provider's credentials (except Comcast won't be on the list of TV providers as they are too big and don't care about their customers) and you can expect to see higher rates on your cable bill, as is typical.
The customers won't have any power over the pricing or any other aspect of this business model. Your choice will be either to have wireless service or to not have wireless service. All the money exchanging will be done behind closed doors between a bunch of greedy conglomerates. I expect to see similar issues at times when certain products will be pulled from a carrier's devices as negotiations break down and prices cannot be agreed upon like we see now between content providers and TV providers.
Those corporate giants willing and able to fork over tons of cash can expect to see their product delivered much faster. This is the data that won't be added to the customer's cap.
And this will change viewership of content, how? Those that want ESPN's content, will get ESPN's content, regardless. Those that don't, won't magically grow a desire because of "free" data.
The customers won't have any power over the pricing or any other aspect of this business model. Your choice will be either to have wireless service or to not have wireless service.
Everyone will have the ESPN app on their devices, whether they want it or not, and the cost will be spread to everyone as well. If you don't want to use it fine, but you are going to pay for it. It won't be an app that the customer can decide to use or ignore to save money.
Right now I don't have legal access to ESPN products. I pay Disney nothing for ESPN. If Disney works out a deal with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile to have their services streamed faster and with no hit to customer caps, I WILL be paying for ESPN as long as I have a contract for wireless service with any of these carriers.
Cost of service is already mostly socialized across the customer base. I guess I'm having a difficult time understanding any significant difference. Oh, and I'll never have an ESPN app on any of my devices.
Everyone will have the ESPN app on their devices, whether they want it or not, and the cost will be spread to everyone as well. If you don't want to use it fine, but you are going to pay for it. It won't be an app that the customer can decide to use or ignore to save money.
The WatchESPN app already exists and it's free. I don't see how having it bundled will cost you more.
Right now I don't have legal access to ESPN products. I pay Disney nothing for ESPN. If Disney works out a deal with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile to have their services streamed faster and with no hit to customer caps, I WILL be paying for ESPN as long as I have a contract for wireless service with any of these carriers.
That makes no sense. If Disney is paying At&t and you have At&t how is that costing you? At&t is GETTING money from Disney not paying money to Disney. That is why At&t is willing to forgo caps and overages on ESPN use.
That makes no sense. If Disney is paying At&t and you have At&t how is that costing you? At&t is GETTING money from Disney not paying money to Disney. That is why At&t is willing to forgo caps and overages on ESPN use.
That's a good point, I got my rant all discombobulated.
They will probably still use this as an excuse to justify a rate increase in my wireless service.
You still would not be paying ESPN/Disney- Disney would be paying the wireless company! Is it really that hard to understand this whole thing? And why are you protecting something that isn't an issue now? If someone is willing to give you something for free, people bitch and complain, if they gotta pay for it, people bitch and complain. Why?
Also I doubt some guy in a garage is working on the next Netflix.
How do you know the next big thing isn't being worked on in someone's garage or dorm room? Except with this rule, the incentive won't be there and an unnecessary barrier will exist, so maybe they won't bother.
Say there is a music app for your smartphone, with equal content for the sake of argument. The "Company A" app is not subject to eating away your data cap, so you can stream music all day long. "Company B" has a similar app and plays the same music, but eats your data cap. Which one would you use? It isn't hard.
Then, everyone starts using "Company A" and they grow to be more massive, and start passing the toll expense on to you.
The possibilities of creative nickle and diming are endless.
Also I doubt some guy in a garage is working on the next Netflix.
How do you know the next big thing isn't being worked on in someone's garage or dorm room? Except with this rule, the incentive won't be there and an unnecessary barrier will exist, so maybe they won't bother.
Because if you think about all the money it would take to start a Netflix, some dude in his underwear in mom's basement isn't going to be the one doing it. The next Netflix will come from someone with access to billions and if they have access to billions they can pay the extra fee.
Say there is a music app for your smartphone, with equal content for the sake of argument. The "Company A" app is not subject to eating away your data cap, so you can stream music all day long. "Company B" has a similar app and plays the same music, but eats your data cap. Which one would you use? It isn't hard.
Then company B should pony up if it wants to survive. Once again company B isn't going to be some dude in his garage. Do you realize how much money it takes just to acquire streaming rights? Not to mention the infrastructure just to be able to stream to millions?
Then, everyone starts using "Company A" and they grow to be more massive, and start passing the toll expense on to you.
They might and if they price their product too high people will stop using said product.
The possibilities of creative nickle and diming are endless.
welcome to the real world that has existed this way forever and always will.
Because if you think about all the money it would take to start a Netflix
Right, because all good ideas and businesses start with billions of dollars laying around, especially on the Internet. There is no such thing as great things being started in garages and basements. Twitter, Google, Apple, Facebook, et al, were all ideas of multi billion dollar corporations with unlimited funds to create an idea. Got it.
If two companies could compete on a fair, level playing field, then let the best one win. If one has an advantage to squeeze out newcomers due to sheer capital available, that's different. Isn't that how the Internet as it exists today was built? Facebook flourished, MySpace tanked. Google boomed, other search engines not so much. Would people have stayed with MySpace had it paid for priority, making it faster and cheaper for end users, and shunned Facebook? Maybe. Even if facebook was better but ended up being slower and more expensive, people would have said MySpace was "good enough".
That's why it is important for the internet to be dumb pipes with everything treated equally.
That's why it is important for the internet to be dumb pipes with everything treated equally.
well it's not that way and it's not going to be that way. And if ISPs could only be dumb pipes I suspect you'd see FEWER of them not more. And prices certainly wouldn't be less either.
Perhaps we need dumb pipes that no private company owns, with plenty of competition fighting for customers on price and customer satisfaction? Too funny, I crack me up.
Is this wireless in context of cell phones, or is this including the wireless deployments that are used to avoid laying physical cable? If the ISP uses a wireless connection in their system, does all traffic through that connection no longer apply even if the end connection is physical? I could make a decent argument that using opto-isolators is using a wireless connection, does that let me throw out net neutrality? Bad wording makes loopholes. Policy based on the current technology is a bad idea, it makes the policy obsolete with the technology. They need to define the main purpose of the connection and base rules accordingly. Don't let companies get special treatment because they use the wrong tool for the task.
