Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxsilver | Hacker News Reader

> one network is pulling this throttling bullshit.

They're all doing something major that violates Net Neutrality.

Sprint's compresses images and throttles video https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... They just don't advertise compression/throttling as a "feature", so it doesn't get the publicity. Sprint also does zero-rating for music.

AT&T has "Sponsored Data" and throttles 'unlimited' plans, and Verizon has their ad-tracking-injection mess.

Whoever I pay is going to get money for "pulling bullshit". I love the idea of voting with your dollar, but all of the major cell networks are anti-Net-Neutrality in multiple ways, so the whole thing is almost a false choice.

View on HN

I don't see how throttling "unlimited" plans is a net neutrality problem, but other than that, point taken.

The comment I replied to mentions Project Fi, do they avoid all this?

Aside: not that this really makes it better, but AT&T's list of Sponsored Data providers is full of hilariously obscure companies:

http://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html

I don't see how throttling "unlimited" plans is a net neutrality problem

It's one of the examples given during the FCC's bright-line guidance ( https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-332260A1.p...):

However, the network practice must be primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management and not business purpose. For example, a provider can’t cite reasonable network management to justify reneging on its promise to supply a customer with “unlimited” data.

I still don't see how it's a net neutrality problem. Promising "unlimited" and then not providing it is a bad thing, certainly, but it's either false advertising or a failure to abide by the service contract, not a net neutrality violation.

You'd be right if the carrier denied data access beyond a certain limit despite advertising "unlimited".

But if the carrier chooses to throttle an "unlimited" data plan and thus degrades the delivery speed outside of "network management" contexts (such as congested network conditions) then they are now subject to additional punitive fines arising from net neutrality regulations that they are now subject to, on top of any (successful) fines related to misrepresentative advertising.

This falls under the category of willfully "impairing, or degrading" an existing service motivated by business interests related to the specific subscriber, instead of driven by purely technical network management justifications which would apply to a wider geographic area (i.e. not subscriber-specific), and this is one of the bright-line examples given by the FCC when they issued their press release.

As a side note, I believe the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection handles deceptive advertising enforcement, while the FCC handles net neutrality enforcement.

I understand you're saying that the FCC considers it to be a net neutrality issue, and I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that I don't agree with that, and don't see why it would be considered a net neutrality issue. If you throttle all data to "unlimited" customers equally then that's still perfectly neutral. The government may disagree, but I have no reason to follow their definitions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com